Lords Sitting of 26 January 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Domestic Workers:Treatment
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as an aid to the creation of more jobs, they have any proposals to treat domestic employment, particularly of those providing care for the elderly, the sick, the disabled or children, as fully tax-deductible positions for those employers in need of this assistance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, decisions on tax are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, but the Government are committed to helping people into work and making work pay.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that when they introduced this type of system in France they created hundreds of thousands of new jobs? Further, does the noble Lord agree that it would quite probably be revenue neutral because most people who employ someone on that basis at present are just paying cash in hand?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the noble Baroness's second point, I am not sure that I should respond about what is, after all, law breaking. Those who are paying cash in hand and not paying tax, or not encouraging their employees to do so, are breaking the law. I do not believe that we can calculate on the basis that any such change would be "revenue
2
neutral". The problem with the change proposed by the noble Baroness is that it would very much help the better off rather than those most in need. because it would only be accessible to those who can afford to pay the gross costs of employment.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does the Minister see a possibility of using the situation to enhance the trade of domestic service? I ask that question because servants are no longer considered to be menial; indeed, they are highly valued, especially in households where the husband and wife have professional qualifications. I have an indirect interest in the matter. A daughter of mine, who lost her executive job, went into domestic service and now runs her own housework and gardening business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord's daughter on her enterprise. Of course, I have the greatest respect for the honourable profession of caring, especially for disabled people and children. However, there is a risk that much domestic service, other than the kind to which I and the noble Lord referred, would be relatively short term, without qualifications and might not lead to full-time permanent employment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the serious lack of nurses, would this proposal not help to provide carers for the community. especially for very severely disabled people? Indeed, caring is very expensive to provide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Baroness was going to refer to the nurses' need for childcare. I do not believe that the noble Baroness meant quite that, although, if I may anticipate questions on that point, the whole of the Government's New Deal proposals for getting young people into work and for after school childcare ought to help nurses, as well as others. As regards the noble Baroness's other

3
point, there is of course a gross shortage of skilled nurses and our welfare-to-work proposals ought to assist in tackling that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the Minister accepts that there is a desperate shortage of nurses—and indeed there is—and suggests that the welfare-to-work proposals will help, can he say how they will do so? Must not something be done as a matter of urgency right now to enable these nurses to have a respectable recompense and to get the National Health Service running again as it should be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate the findings of the review body or, indeed, the Government's response to them. I must apologise for shortening my answer too much when I referred only to welfare-to-work proposals. Indeed, a number of other government initiatives will help with the problem with regard to nurses; for example, the 10 pence starting rate of tax, the forthcoming minimum wage, reform of national insurance contributions and working families tax credit. All of those projects operate in the same direction to encourage this kind of work.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not interested in these reviews? I am interested in what is going to be done now in a desperate situation to give a fair deal to nurses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has repeated his question. I must also repeat that he will not expect me to anticipate the report of the review body or, indeed, the Government's reaction to it. I fully agree with the noble Lord that a shortage of 8,000 nurses is a very serious problem for the National Health Service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware—
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it is the turn of this side.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think there is enough time for both the noble Baroness and my noble friend. Perhaps the noble Baroness will go first.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I support the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Minister said that we do not have enough qualified people and there is a risk that people who are not qualified will take up these jobs. Does he agree that at the moment the Government are planning to spend money to create more childcare facilities for working mothers? He must agree that it is wrong to double tax people. If we implemented the measure we are discussing, that would provide great
4
opportunities to reduce unemployment and would also teach young people how to run a home and how to look after a family. There is no reason why we should not set certain standards for these people before they are employed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I believe that I have already given sufficient indication of the Government's policies, including the childcare policies to which the noble Baroness referred. Those policies will help to get people into work, which is what we must be concerned with above all. However, I must repeat that the suggested relief would benefit the relatively well-to-do, who can afford to employ a carer in the home. It would be expensive to provide relief at a marginal rate on the gross salary cost of the carer and it would, of course, mean a windfall for those who already have domestic help.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of some of the more savage financial penalties that were inflicted on those in the nursing profession by the previous government in the steep rises in the cost of accommodation that were inflicted on nurses without their having any say in the matter? I refer to rented accommodation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not disagree with my noble friend's analysis of past problems.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, on a slightly wider point, does not the Minister agree that it is now government policy that we should move away from these incredibly wasteful across-the-board benefits and move to benefits focused much more closely on need?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, much as I would like to answer that question, the noble Lord is going a good deal wide of the original Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to rise so early but I believe that we have spent eight minutes on the first Question. I think that perhaps we should move on.

Post Office: Future
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to give the Post Office more commercial freedom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the options for granting greater commercial freedom to the Post Office are being examined in the context of the review announced by the Government last May.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but last May is a long time ago. It is reported

5
that the results of the review have been in the hands of Ministers since early November. When will the report be published and when will a decision be reached? Is the noble Lord aware that a number of other countries have commercialised their post offices with great success and that the British Post Office has been under inquiry since 1992? In particular there is the question of the excessive dividend which is taken, amounting to no less than about 80 per cent. of the post-tax profit. That is double what any normal company pays, as the noble Lord well knows from his own past experience. Not only is virtually the whole of that profit taken, but the Post Office is not allowed to borrow externally. When will those two issues be put right?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the noble Lord asks questions about international competition, dividend policy and indeed the time of the inquiry. It has to be said that the scope of any decision to change the competitive capacity of the Post Office has to be considered carefully. As was rightly said, it has taken a long time. At first it was difficult to reach agreement on how matters should be taken forward. That has now been achieved following an extensive consultative exercise. We shall shortly announce the terms of reference for the next review. I agree that international competition is growing. It is important that we meet that with the right kind of flexibility from our Post Office. As the noble Lord will know, the dividend policy will be decided as part of the next stage in deciding the right way to give commercial freedom to the Post Office.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the privatisation of the Post Office and the abolition of the monopoly status have been ruled out?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not think the purpose of the review is to decide whether it is privately or publicly owned, but rather whether the Post Office can act with greater commercial freedom to improve its service to customers and to compete in what is rapidly becoming a more international market. I do not think the status of the Post Office is in itself the key issue of the review.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a long running Treasury argument that changes to the PSBR would affect the exchange rate adversely? Now that many people, especially in industry, believe that the pound is too strong, does not that argument disappear out of the window, especially as regards the Post Office?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as we know, the funding of the Post Office is part of the overall government programme. I point out to noble Lords that the capital expenditure of the Post Office is already running in the range of £300 million a year. The issue is how best to target that as regards international competitiveness. The Post Office pays an extremely good dividend to the Treasury and is meeting its targets.
6
It is the future capacity that worries me. Getting that right is relevant only to the competitive capacity of the Post Office and has little to do with the PSBR.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay—this matter was a clear Labour Party manifesto commitment—is not that the Treasury wants to keep its hands on the significant dividend that comes from the Post Office?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, that sounds like surmise. The most important issue is to achieve the right shape and structure for the Post Office. I do not think there is anything in people's minds other than ensuring that very wide consultation—the widest ever undertaken in relation to this service—brings about a good commercial structure.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, am I correct in understanding from the noble Lord's second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the likely outcome of the first review will be the announcement of a further review? If so, how long are we to expect the process to continue?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as long as it takes to achieve the right answer. The point I made was that the first exercise was scoping. The second exercise will be a review of the appropriate structure to meet the scope that has been defined.

Nuclear Weapons
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
In relation to their goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, what response they will make to the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, which called on the Government "to declare what steps it is taking towards the attainment of its own stated goal and what further steps it is proposing for the years leading up to the Millennium".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are withdrawing Britain's free-fall nuclear bomb from service. We hope to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty this year. The Government are examining a range of nuclear issues in the strategic defence review and hope to be able to present the conclusions of the review to Parliament in the first part of this year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does my noble friend recall that at the end of a statement the bishops announced their intention of seeking to engage in a constructive dialogue on this subject with members of the Government? Will my noble friend be able to find

7
time during her busy programme during the next week or two to engage in a constructive dialogue on the subject with me?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, since the Government took office on 1st May, the noble Lord has submitted two Questions for Written Answer and three Oral Questions on the issue. We had a debate on 17th December. The noble Lord has two more Questions in the pipeline. I believe that I have been engaged in constructive debate with my noble friend on the issue on a number of occasions. I shall of course be delighted to see him in the course of the next week if he has something new to add to the debate.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, the Catholic bishops said that international treaties oblige states to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons. Will the noble Baroness confirm that there is no international agreement which calls upon anyone to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons except in the context of general and complete disarmament?
Is the noble Baroness also aware that the statement of the bishops states that the International Court of Justice had supported that view? Will she confirm that in its advisory opinion in July 1996, the International Court of Justice said that,
"the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would he lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would he at stake"?
If the noble Baroness engages in further constructive dialogue with anyone concerned in this matter, will she be prepared to advise that this casual and selective approach to the facts surrounding a most important international issue can be seriously misleading?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we should be in no doubt in your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government are for global elimination of nuclear weapons. We shall ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations when we are satisfied with verified progress towards that goal.
The noble Lord also refers to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Her Majesty's Government welcome the court's recognition of the importance of the obligations under the non-proliferation treaty including nuclear weapon states' obligation on nuclear disarmament. The ICJ opinion does not require a change in the United Kingdom's entirely defensive deterrence policy. We would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in the extreme circumstance
8
of self-defence which includes the defence of our NATO allies. The court was unable to conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstanceof self-defence in which the very survival of the state would be at stake. On that point the noble Lord is entirely right.

Algeria: Massacres
2.56 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, and at his request. I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question:
What they will do, while they hold the presidency of the European Union, to persuade Algeria to facilitate an investigation by the United Nations Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, M. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, into the massacres in Algeria.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the troika mission to Algiers on 19th and 20th January, led by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, urged the Algerian Government to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions to visit Algeria. We regret that the Algerian Government were not ready to do so. The mission encouraged Algeria to adopt more openness and transparency which can only be in the Algerian Government's own interest.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the European Union is unavoidably involved in the Algerian security situation since, in the event of a further breakdown of order in Algeria, a flood of refugees would seek to enter the European Union? Does the Minister still hold to the statement given by the Foreign Secretary to the European Parliament on 14th January that we have so far seen no evidence to support allegations of involvement in these matters by the Algerian security authorities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of those allegations. However, the noble Lord is quite right. As yet we have no definitive evidence of such involvement from the Algerian Government. Dialogue between the EU and Algeria will continue. During our presidency, the UK will repeat encouragement to openness and transparency. Indeed even today, Foreign Ministers are discussing the troika report and the way forward at the General Affairs Council in Brussels under the leadership of my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords. do the Government consider that France has any particular responsibility for the affairs of Algeria bearing in mind their long history together and the times—I remember them in Paris—when the cries were, "Algèrie française"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, apportioning blame in the way that my noble friend

9
urges me to do is not helpful to the situation in Algeria. The UK continues to deplore and condemn the appalling violence that we have seen in Algeria. As the EU president, we registered the European Union's sympathy and concern with the fate of the people of Algeria; and we shall continue to do so throughout our presidency through the dialogue which I have described.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the troika mission found out more about diplomatic sensibilities than co-ordinated action to help resolve one of Africa's most bloody civil conflicts? As a constructive step to combat the violence which is clearly causing human misery on an appalling scale in Algeria, has the Foreign Secretary offered the Government of Algeria the assistance of the directory of counter terrorist expertise set up by the G7 to enable expert help to be made available immediately to countries which need it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the mission achieved much of what it set out to achieve—to express the concern of the European Union and its member states at the situation in Algeria, and to continue the political dialogue between the European Union and Algeria about the position in that unhappy country at present. The objective was not to undertake any investigation but to establish the framework for future dialogue to which the British Government and the EU are committed. We also wanted to maintain the impetus of the dialogue. The British Government have therefore invited the Algerian Foreign Minister, Mr. Attaf, to visit the UK during our presidency. I am happy to say that Mr. Attaf has accepted that invitation in principle.
We have spoken to the Algerian Government about the claims they make about terrorism abroad. We have asked them to give us their advice on how we may better help over these issues. We look forward to their response.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. referred to one French slogan. Does the Minister recall another, pronounced at the same time, "Le fascisme ne passera pas?" Is it not time that the European Communities and Britain encouraged the Algerian Government to hold free elections and then to implement the results?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Algerian Government have made some progress on this issue. We continue to press them to hold the free elections to which the noble Lord refers. We are also trying to encourage the Algerians in their democratic approach through a number of other means. Notably, a delegation of women members from the Algerian parliament is to come to this country next month. We have also urged the Algerians to grant better access to journalists so that there may be more freedom and transparency in the reporting of what is really happening in Algeria at the moment.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as far back as 1993, the Algerian Government invited the UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions to Algeria, but because of conflicting schedules he was
10
unable to attend? This is a matter that Algeria is perfectly willing to discuss but within the framework of the regular meetings it has with the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to remind us of that point. The Algerian Government were not prepared to receive special rapporteurs before the annual commission on human rights, which will take place in Geneva in March and April. We shall continue to urge Algeria to adopt a much more open and transparent approach; and we will maintain our encouragement of allowing a visit by UN special rapporteurs which can only be to the advantage of the government. As the mission pointed out during the talks, openness and transparency are crucial if public suspicions are to be lifted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any information as to whether the European Union is willing to use its economic relationship with Algeria as a source of sanctions if the situation worsens? Algeria, after all, has a very important economic relationship with the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I have no further information on that point. I suggest that if the noble Lord wishes to examine the issue further he should either write to me or raise it in the form of a Question after we have the benefit of hearing what happened at the GAC today.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Government's relations with Iraq.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Right of young persons to time off for study or training]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 19, line 8, leave out from ("education") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to this amendment, also standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock, perhaps I may refer briefly to the serious concerns raised in Committee on Thursday evening regarding the legal basis on which the Government are acting. Over the weekend, my noble friend Lord Russell and myself have taken legal advice. That advice assures us that the information that we were given by the Government—I am sure in good faith—was not accurate.
I do not intend to pursue this matter further today—it is not appropriate in relation to this amendment, and I know only too well the maxim in politics: if you are in a hole, stop digging. I do not wish to cause the Government to dig any further today. I intend, instead, to write to the Minister within the next 24 hours, setting out the basis of the legal advice that we have received and give her an opportunity to consider it and no doubt to seek her own legal advice and respond to it. However, because of the importance of the issues raised, I intend today to table a Motion to recommit Part II of the Bill, and we shall consider the matter further in the light of the Minister's response. I apologise that this matter is not strictly connected with the amendment that I rise to move.
In moving Amendment No. 130, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 131. This amendment removes the limitation imposed by the Bill which means that only "low achievers" can benefit from the legislation. It has always been the Liberal Democrats' view that all young workers should benefit from such laws, and that is the intention of this amendment. It does not always follow that those who leave school at 16 have a low standard of achievement. Some are offered good opportunities by employers known to them or their school and decide that it is in their interest to take up such opportunities as a means of further training. Now that further and higher education are being made more expensive at the point of use—I refer, for instance, to tuition fees—more young people may well wish to earn and bank money between the ages of 16 and 18 in preparation for degree courses. They should not be excluded from the right to time off for study and training during that time.
I hope that the Government will feel able to support these amendments. I suspect, on past precedent, that I have had the only victory that I am going to have at this stage of the Bill, and that they may not—in which case, I hope that, in replying, the Minister will say a little more about what the Government have in mind as the "standard of achievement" (I quote the phrase used in the Bill) which the Secretary of State intends to set as a hurdle in the regulations. Perhaps she will give the Committee a better idea as to the type of youngster at whom this part of the Bill is aimed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Since I was one of the first who set the hare running, which my noble friend Lord Tope has just taken a little further, and since the matter is of considerable interest to many noble Lords, perhaps I owe the Committee some further explanation. I thank the Minister for the courtesy that she has already shown in this matter.
12
I think it is now agreed that the authority to impose tuition fees on students is a matter of private law. It is to be done by the universities under their own authority and no authority is being conferred by statute to enable them to do so.
Section 1(5) of the Education Act 1962, which was cited by the Minister in her Written Answer to me on 21st January, creates an authority to deal with what has previously been a reimbursement of the fee and deals with the problems created by the Government's concession of last August on the gap year. It does not create any authority to levy money from the student.
That means that we have been considering Part II of the Bill under what is at least a misunderstanding. Following the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee stating that this power was to be imposed under existing legislation, we have been looking for some statutory authority behind this. Now that we know that there is none, rather different questions arise from those addressed in the amendments that we put before the Committee. For example, Clause 18(2), which allows the Government to stop the levying of any fee, now becomes a Henry VIII clause, though it was not so brought to the attention of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the department's memorandum. Moreover, it now authorises the Secretary of State, by regulation, to deprive the universities at a moment's notice of a major part of their income. That may be of concern to many noble Lords.
It will also be of some concern to discover whether universities have the right not to levy the tuition fee. If they have that right, we shall face the prospect at the end of the year, with unfilled places, of July sales, clearance sales and—God forbid!—closing down sales.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Can he explain to the Committee the connection between what he is saying and the amendment on the Marshalled List which we are debating at the moment?
Earl Russell: I am explaining the point made by my noble friend. There is room for a division of opinion as to whether the discussion should have been on the Motion to go into Committee or now. It is not for me to resolve that but I hoped that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to take it now. If the Committee feels otherwise, I shall desist.
Baroness Blackstone: It would be helpful if we kept to the order in which amendments are put down and grouped. I would be happy to speak to Amendment No. 139 when we reach it. We are on a quite different amendment now. I should be grateful if the Committee would accept that it makes more sense to stick to the groupings in the agreed order than to take amendments out of order.
Baroness Blotch: I do not think it matters which order the amendments are taken in. The serious point being made is that we expended our opportunity during the Committee stage of the Bill to discuss Part II when we all had a full understanding of how the law worked. But we are all taking independent legal advice and

13
finding that the basis on which we have been discussing the Bill is different from the Government's basis. We believe that there is a case for re-committal. The point is not on the Marshalled List today in the form of an amendment because it is not an amendment. However, it seems to me to be a subject which must be aired.
Baroness Blackstone: I should be happy to respond to the questions that have been raised by the noble Earl. Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. However, it would be right for us first to deal with the time-off provisions. That is what we are meant to be discussing today. We should do that first and then come to the issue relating to Thursday's business when we have dealt with the issues involving time off, on which a number of amendments have been put down, including the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just spoken.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, responds to the amendment which we are debating, perhaps I may say a few words. I asked my son a question the other day at which he was flabbergasted. It was a question which I could have posed to workers outside digging up the road, the army of cleaners who come in after we have all gone home, workers in a whole range of industries with production lines and workers in the field. I should explain to the Committee that my son is currently working as a bricklayer's labourer. The question I asked him was: did he need to read and write to do that job? He said: "Of course not".
I am concerned about what might be described as the Weatherill factor in the clause. I should explain that the Weatherill factor is that declared by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill: the law of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences that I fear as a result of this clause and the way it is written concern, on the one hand, the young people whom the Government rightly seek to assist by ensuring that they get a basic education beyond school-leaving age. I fear that they will not be employed because there will be a penalty on employers if those young people are so employed. Therefore, they will not have the ability to engage in essential, useful and productive work that is an enormous part of the requirements of a decent society.
The other unintended consequence is that those young people who have the requisite educational qualifications may be employed but may not be allowed time off work by their employer for further studies or training. That group may have been dissatisfied with school and education. They may see no benefit from it and feel they do not need further education and training. They will therefore be dissuaded from using the provision.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the concerns that I have expressed, echoing those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and reflect on what may be the totally unwitting and unintended consequences of the clause through the way in which it is drafted.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is a rare occasion when I rise with sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, says. However, I do so because there are unintended consequences in the proposals in the clauses. One is, sadly, that it will not be helpful to the very people whom the proposals purport to help.
I have some questions. I apologise profusely for not giving warning of those questions earlier but I realised only this morning that there are two papers referred to. I have seen neither. One is entitled Qualifying for Success; it deals with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The other is Targets for our Future which deals with England and Northern Ireland. They are both background papers which would be relevant to our discussions on the Bill.
My two questions are for information which will help us understand the proposals. The first is fairly straightforward: where an employer is challenged by a young person, taken to a tribunal and loses, Clause 24, new Section 63C(4) gives the penalty for the employer. It is:
"to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which (the young man or woman] would have been entitled under section 63B if the employer or the principal had not refused".
My understanding is that the young person employed is paid by his employer for five days a week anyway, whether or not they go on training, whether or not they are given time off for training. Are we to understand from that penalty that the employer will not only pay for each of the five days worked by the young person but, as a punishment, will also have to pay a sixth day's pay to the young person if the employer loses at the tribunal?
My second question is this. Where an employer gives training on the job within the company which is effective for the purposes of working within that company and which also meets all the requirements of the job and the young person, and where such training conforms to the health and safety requirements but not to a qualification which is awarded externally or which meets the requirements of Clause 23(2)(c), will that company—medium-sized or small—be obliged either to alter the training programme or send 16 to 17 year-olds off site for study or training at the company's expense, even though the training within the company satisfies the company's needs? The employer may have to employ a substitute employee while that young person is off site.
The reason I ask that question is that a great deal of disquiet is building up on the part of industry in negotiating with the Government over the welfare-to-work programmes. We discover that the Government subjectively say: "We don't like your in-house training programmes" when it involves some of the medium-sized and bigger companies who provide effective, on-the-job training for their own employees. The Government are beginning to say that it does not conform. Therefore the employers are faced either with

15
not co-operating with the welfare-to-work schemes or they have to make costly alterations to the existing schemes at their own expense.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to add to the words of my noble friend Lord Tope. As has been said this afternoon, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we have a provision that is inclusive. The way the Government worded the clause, the provision was exclusive. The noble Lord who spoke after my noble friend made that clear.
I wish to press the Government on this clause. It may be that this is just a beginning for them. We have heard throughout the proceedings on the Bill that it is intended to be evolutionary and that some of the proposals we have made in other parts of the Bill may be taken up by the Government later on. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that all young people under the age of 19 who are not in higher education should have the opportunity while they are at work to get training at work, or to go away to an institution, or to use many of the modern techniques of gaining training and education.
We would be interested to hear whether the Minister sees it as just the beginning and whether the point we are making with the amendment is something the Government hope to see later on. We should very much like to see a timescale put on that if this is the case.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for agreeing with the argument I put forward. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the remarks she later tacked on. I hope that my noble friend will not give in to that kind of argument.
In my experience, even very small employers—good, responsible employers—will be glad to see that any training they give on the job, as she described it, will be externally assessed and accredited and will be part of transferable skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have had responses from a small number of employers with a particular viewpoint. I am sure that good. responsible employers would not push the line that she pushed.
Lord Walton of Detchant: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised a number of issues of significance in relation to this clause and I can understand and appreciate her concerns. However, one of the most welcome developments we have seen in the field of education and training over the past seven or eight years has been the increasing development of vocational qualifications under the NVQ system, and more recently the GNVQ system, in order to develop that kind of high skill economy on which this country's future economic viability and competitiveness must depend.
For far too long in the United Kingdom we have had a low-skill economy, and far too many young people capable of benefiting from further education and training have failed to take advantage of such training, often for financial reasons, after leaving school at the age of 16. When the National Commission on Education
16
looked at this field it was very concerned to see the development of a mechanism whereby individuals leaving school at 16, for whatever reason, might take the opportunity of having at least a limited amount of time off work in order to acquire such qualifications or to build on qualifications such as NVQ I and 2 in order to achieve NVQ 3 and higher by a process of credit accumulation and transfer.
It may be that there are deficiencies in Clause 23 but I wholly believe that the objective underlying the clause is a worthy one. It is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that some of the major employers in this country—I think in particular of the motor industry but there are many others—have in-service training of a very high quality for their employees; and that is not just relating to the development of skills that they need in that industry but often education and training covering a much wider field. However, a large number of employers, particularly small and medium sized enterprises, do not make available such opportunities to their employees in order to capitalise on their skills and the opportunities they would otherwise receive if enabled to undertake such training. Hence, I greatly welcome the clause.
It may be that it needs considerable fine-tuning before it eventually becomes law. But the principle of requiring employers, where necessary, to give time off work, perhaps on the basis of one day per week, to individuals to undertake further education and training in order to work towards other qualifications is very much in line with the proposals of the Dearing Report—not the recent Dearing Report on higher education but the earlier Dearing Report on qualifications for 16 to 18 year-olds. It is crucial that we should develop a system to enhance the quality of the so-called vocational qualifications alongside those such as A-levels, which are regarded generally as academic qualifications. Indeed, many would say that the GNVQ is the vocational A-level. I believe it is right, in order to develop the high skill economy that this country needs for the future, that a clause such as this should become part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his remarks because I find it difficult to disagree with him in principle about the policy aims of these clauses. There are 4 million businesses in this country. Ninety-seven per cent. of them are companies with fewer than 20 employees. Out of the 4 million businesses, 1.3 million are employers. They employ other people. The rest–2.7 million businesses—are sole traders or consist of the self-employed. They do not employ other people. We shall he imposing on very small businesses the strong arm of the law in order to implement these proposals.
A good deal of progress has been made by the present Government, carrying on from the previous government. in working with business and commerce to encourage them to take training seriously. Then along comes the provisions in this Bill saying, "If you do not comply with prescription set out in the Bill, you will find

17
yourself before an industrial tribunal". It is the method by which this policy is achieved that we take exception to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord, Lord Tope, replies, can he tell the House whether he really thinks that employers will continue to take on the same number of 16 and 17 year-olds if anyone who is already well qualified can become even better qualified at the employer's expense, in both time and money? If he could tell us on what grounds he thinks that will improve the situation, I would be more convinced by his amendment.
I wanted to make my next point to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but, sadly, he is not in his place. I listened to what the noble Lord said. It sounded as if you did not need to be able to read and write to be a bricklayer. I say to him—I hope he will read it in Hansard—that it is extremely dangerous nowadays not to be able to read and write. You cannot understand the instructions that are on machinery; you do not understand the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; and you find it very difficult to understand notices from your union. Anyone who has suffered from bricks laid by someone who did not know what they were doing recognises that it is not as easy as all that to be a bricklayer. No doubt the noble Lord's son can read and write and is an excellent bricklayer, but it is nonsense to say that it is unimportant for people who are bricklayers.
Lord Monkswell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making is that my son is working as a bricklayer's labourer and in that context he is just a carrier of bricks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: He still needs to be able to understand the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and to follow instructions on the building site.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: While many large employers are extraordinarily good at providing on-the-job training and vocational training for their employees, one invariably finds that the focus is on middle management and upwards. If one examines the extent to which there is any training beyond pure vocational training for the job given to people at the bottom end in employment, one finds that it diminishes rapidly. Many of those losing their jobs tend to be at the bottom end rather than in middle management and upwards. They lack skills for wider training beyond on-the-job training.
A case can be made for greater opportunities for people working for large employers. They should have greater opportunities to undertake further education than exist at present. The proposed legislation will assist greatly in those areas by providing more mobility, greater skills and greater employment opportunities in future.
The number of small employers is growing. They need every possible assistance. They are the employers of the future who will provide greater employment opportunities than in the past. I could share some of the
18
views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if the reality was that we had a high incidence of good quality training and high skills in those areas. Regrettably, the facts point to quite the opposite. It is in those areas that we, as a competitive nation, have been falling behind what has been happening, particularly in Europe. We need more training and opportunities than we have at present. We have to provide them for the growth area, particularly for those people who do not have such skills; for example. those in the lower end of employment. The way forward is to give them a chance to obtain training under arrangements of this kind. One would hope that the growing number of small employers would be prepared to embrace these new provisions and see the benefit for their companies. They will provide them with the opportunity to skill people so that there will be greater flexibility in future. Those whose jobs have disappeared will, if they have been retrained and re-skilled, be better equipped to look for jobs elsewhere.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I do not pursue the initial points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Earl. They will be dealt with later. Before I begin my reply, the two documents to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred are both public consultation documents. If she does not have access to them, we shall certainly make sure that she does. They should be available to all Members of this House.
The effect of these amendments needs to be clear. The effect of Amendment No. 130 would be to remove a most important power which the Secretary of State would need in order to make regulations. It would remove the key concept of standard of achievement and thereby undermine the most important effect of the Bill. To delete the phrase, "an academic or vocational" in Amendment No. 131, which comes from Section 24 of the Education Act 1997, would call into question the legal backing for controlling qualifications in the present context. Again, it would damage the quality assurance of the provision that we propose.
In considering Amendment No. 130, it is important to recall the wider context. The noble Lord. Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the extension of training opportunities. As several Members of the Committee have said, there is a large number of young people who do not have the opportunity of training in their first jobs after school. We must turn to those young people. In particular, Members of the Committee may recall that our Investing in Young People strategy sets out our long-term aim that all young people who are able should achieve qualifications at least at Level 2 and thus improve their employability. That is the central intent of this clause. As I recall, at Second Reading noble Lords did not appear to be at odds with that primary intention. Indeed, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that it was an aspect of the Bill to which he gave "an unqualified welcome". I believe that is right.
We need to ensure that as many of our young people as possible stay on in education and training, including those already in jobs. We want them to achieve qualifications at Level 2. That is in reply to the specific

19
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. They should achieve higher qualifications if they can, but Level 2 is our primary objective. Many young people have taken advantage of the opportunities provided by modern apprenticeships, which have been devised and developed by employers who do provide decent training. We are also introducing national traineeships as a further high-quality work-based route to NVQs at Level 2.
But there is still a very large number of 16 and 17 year-olds who left school without any qualifications and who are well short of Level 2 qualifications. I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell and others, but we have to prioritise. We must focus our measures on those who did not get much out of school. At worst, some of these young people end up in dead-end jobs for a few months with little prospect of anything better. The focus of this measure, and of our time and that of employers, including the prioritisation of resources, must be to bring those young people up to Level 2.
Amendment No. 130 could seriously undermine the way in which that is done. It would remove altogether the concept of the standard of achievement, and would remove key safeguards for both the young person and the employer. After all, the young person must be able to know what he or she is entitled to expect. Employers need to be able to plan ahead and take account of any implications in employing young people. They should not have to bear the burden of unreasonable demands.
At present only 70 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds have achieved Level 2 qualifications by the age of 19. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, the achievement of that level is the basis on which all future qualifications can be built. But if the young people have not achieved even that level by the age of 19, then their long-term employability is extremely suspect. Therefore, our priority is at Level 2.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the question of sanctions and what would happen were an employer brought to a tribunal for failing to provide time off in order for a young person to achieve Level 2. Clearly, there has to be a penalty if there is a breach of the requirement under this law. Obviously, we would hope, as far as possible, that the law was setting a standard and that industrial tribunals would rarely be brought in. However, undoubtedly a penalty would be involved were the employer to fail to carry out his legal obligations. The precise penalty is a complex issue and will depend on the particular circumstances. If the noble Baroness wishes, we can return to this in more detail and I can write to her as to the exact form the penalty will take.
As regards training provided short of Level 2, clearly much of it—and reference has been made in the debate to good companies providing quality training—would contribute to the achievement of Level 2. However, if the level of training was judged not to be sufficient to enable young workers to achieve Level 2, clearly that would not qualify under this clause.
20
I now turn to Amendment No. 131. It is helpful to bear in mind that the quality of provision is an important part of the legislation in general. Indeed, at Second Reading I gave an assurance to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place today, that we would have,
"a proper method of certification".
The regulatory authorities, such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, will work within the provisions of the relevant legislation, such as Section 24 of the Education Act 1997, which defines the range of qualifications that may be authenticated. This definition encompasses the majority of qualifications offered both at work and outside it. If we were to open up the definition in the way suggested by Amendment No. 131, by deleting the words "academic or vocational", that would have adverse implications for the necessary quality assurance processes which, I believe, Members of the Committee would wish to see in place.
Clearly, some young people exercising their right to time off for study or training will at present have no qualifications at all. The qualifications that they would need span both academic and vocational qualifications. They would need to be included in the authentication process mentioned earlier. It is vital that both employers and young people have confidence in the quality of the qualifications available. Amendment No. 131 would undermine that intention. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will reject this amendment, but, preferably, that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for a very helpful reply. I reassure him straightaway that we still warmly welcome this part of the Bill. It was certainly not the intention of either of these amendments to undermine its provisions, but to extend them to a wider section of people. I shall consider what he has said and see how better we can achieve that at a later stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked me whether I thought that smaller employers really would employ 16 and 17 year-olds. I acknowledge that there are many employers, perhaps mostly larger ones but by no means only those, who already make very good and proper provision for the further education and training of young employees. But that does not apply to all. I acknowledge that there are difficulties particularly for smaller employers. But if progress is to be made towards achieving a better educated, trained and skilled workforce for the flexible markets that we talk about there must be some stick as well as carrot. Those are the employers whom we should encourage.
I acknowledge that there are difficulties and understandable concerns, but I hope that we shall be able to make faster progress than is envisaged in the Bill. I do not believe that in his response the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the timescale of the evolutionary process envisaged by the Government. We strongly support this part of the Bill and have no wish to undermine it. We shall consider the response received from the noble Lord. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 130A.
Page 19, line 14. at end insert ("and, if he is disabled, is entitled to be provided with appropriate support to ensure access to such training").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 131A and 132A. These amendments address the same point. It is the experience of the voluntary organisations who represent disabled people and work for their benefit that employers of disabled people who want to undertake part-time courses are frequently ready to find the course fees. They regard that as a very proper way of helping their employees to advance themselves. However, it is also their experience that employers are reluctant to find the appropriate support necessary to enable a disabled person to take advantage of a course that he or she proposes to take. It appears that the Disability Discrimination Act has not changed the situation to any marked extent. Therefore, perhaps this part of the Bill may provide a means to air the problem. These are probing amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness can provide me with some comfort.
I take as an example a deaf employee. He or she will require some form of sign language, which implies an interpreter or some other means of communication if he or she is to take advantage of the course. The National Deaf Children's Society, which has drawn my attention to this matter, informs me that some deaf people face barriers in gaining access to training because their employers are not prepared to help in this regard. The society quotes the case of a deaf woman who attends evening classes twice a week and is studying a foundation course in psychology without any communication support. Her employer found the course fees, for which she was very grateful, but not the necessary support. She has been struggling to follow the lectures and is considering withdrawing from the course. It is supposed to be a two-year course, and she continues to work full time. One may ask why she has not applied for a disabled student's allowance. It appears that part-time students are not eligible under that scheme.
For some years I was on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I chaired a committee of that body which received applications from blind people, principally but not exclusively guide dog owners, for help to undertake training. The primary objective was and is to supply guide dogs. (I say "was" because I am no longer on the council, having been superannuated as a result of reaching a certain age.) In some cases we were able to help with grants so that blind people could take advantage of the educational opportunities available. Often what is required is new technology, whereby with the use of amazing machines with voice recognition patterns blind people can hear the spoken word when documents are inserted into those machines. The machines do not sound like Daleks but like real people. That is a remarkable technology but it has a certain cost. People require help if they are to take advantage of it.
Do the Government have any intention of extending the disabled student's allowance to cover part-time students on higher education courses? If so, these bodies seek clarification from the Government as to who will pay the cost of communication support for deaf and blind people or those who are otherwise disabled and find difficulty in gaining access to courses and are doing non-higher education courses. If disabled employees cannot claim the allowance for non-higher education courses, who will be responsible for paying the high cost of communication support? Often there is disagreement between employees and employers and the course provider about payment. My attention was drawn to a case in which an employer paid the course fee of £150 but the communication support cost £900 to enable the employee to undertake the course. That appeared to be an astonishing figure, but the employer felt that it was unreasonable to ask him to pay it.
There is a real problem here. If, as the Government have made clear, there is to be an extension of the right to time off to enable people to pursue educational training courses leading to higher qualifications, the provision for disabled people must include everything that allows them to take advantage of that opportunity. It is certainly not the case at present. I should like to know from the Government whether they envisage that that will be the case in future. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support the spirit underlying these amendments. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is aware of the fact that some years ago the Department of Health established a series of communication aid centres throughout the country in different areas with the objective of producing and supplying communication aids to those in just the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord? One wonders whether those aid centres are still in existence and whether they can help in the situations to which he has referred.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sympathetic to all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is important that all young employees take advantage of the education and training opportunities that are available to get the skills and qualifications that they need. This is doubly important for young employees with disabilities.
In considering Amendment No. 130A the Committee may wish to be made aware of the considerable range of existing provisions that can help young disabled employees to participate fully in education and training. In particular, some Members of the Committee may already know that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 places a statutory duty on the Further Education Funding Council to have regard to the needs of students with disabilities when determining what provision to make. One of the key ways in which the FEFC has satisfied this duty is through its funding methodology. Colleges may claim additional funding units from the Further Education Funding Council for the direct costs associated with the support needs of individual students with disabilities.

23
More generally, access to work is available for anyone in paid employment, including 16 and 17 year-olds, to assist them to train for, or to retain, employment. Access to work helps towards the extra costs of practical support that disabled people need to overcome work-related obstacles caused by disability. It is available to people who are disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, who are in or about to enter paid employment, and who incur additional costs because of their disability. If training is undertaken as part of a young person's employment, then support provided under the access to work arrangements would cover that activity.
In addition the Disability Discrimination Act provides that employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustment if their premises or employment arrangements place the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. Members of the Committee will be aware that these provisions do not relate to an employer who has fewer than 20 employees, but they will also know that we are currently consulting on, and reviewing the question of, lowering this threshold.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 131A, calls for the provision of funding for appropriate support to ensure access to such training while the young person is for the time being not working for the employer but under contract to another person, "the principal." But it is not wholly clear whether it is intended that this should be an obligation on the principal, for whom the young person may be currently working, or on the employer, or on the state. The Committee may also recall that costs of this nature were not included in the regulatory appraisal assessment of overall costs either as costs to employers or as costs to government. So they would be new costs.
Turning to the third amendment, Amendment No. 132A, I can fully understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to ensure that all young disabled employees are able to take full advantage of the education and training opportunities that are available to them. The amendment would provide for enforcement through industrial tribunals and, until the earlier issues have been carefully considered, it cannot be clear whether a new individual employment right is being considered and, if so, whether the Employment Rights Act 1996 would be the appropriate place to locate such a right. If the entitlements proposed earlier by the noble Lord took a different form, then a different enforcement procedure altogether might be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also asked about the extension of disabled student allowances to cover part-time students in higher education. That is not relevant to this part of the Bill, which is about 16 and 17 year-olds who are not in higher education. I can say to the noble Lord that we are looking at the position of part-time disabled students. No decisions have been made because further work needs to be done in order to assess the numbers who might be involved and the costs that would arise. I hope it is helpful to know that the matter is very much on the agenda and that it is being looked at.
24
We are committed to ensuring that all young disabled people can play their full part in the labour market and therefore in society more generally. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these important issues. However. the amendments need further careful consideration in the light of existing provision. We wish to ensure that young people with disabilities are able to take full advantage of what is to be made available. In particular we will look at ways of ensuring access to training and will say more on this important matter when the Bill reaches another place. I hope, in the light of that, that the noble Lord is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend responds, the noble Baroness said that the amendment does not make it clear on whom the costs would fall—the principal, the Government or the employer. That may be a problem with the amendment. However, if this scheme is to go ahead—and, with the Government's majority, the chances are that it will—the problem has to he resolved, if not by my noble friend, then by the Government. Unless that happens the young people who fall into this category could be left outside the scheme because neither the employer, nor the Government, nor the principal, would have an obligation to meet the costs. It is something that the noble Baroness and her Ministers should consider and then come back with an amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. This would have to be resolved. As I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the question, among other issues which arise from acceptance of these amendments, and we will, if we can, bring forward amendments in another place to deal with them.
Lord Jenkins of Roding: I am grateful for the care with which the noble Baroness responded to the three amendments. It is clear that the Government regard this as an important part of the new provisions in Part III of the Bill. It is good to know that they take on board the need to make provision for the support costs. I shall wait to see what happens. We are becoming used to hearing of reviewing this, revisiting that and examining the other. It all sounds very sympathetic and friendly but not a lot appears to come out at the other end. Hopes are raised only to be dashed. I hope that that will not happen in this instance.
I, for one. have always been hugely impressed by the determination of people who suffer from considerable physical or sensory handicaps to make something of their lives. They are prepared to make efforts that people more fortunately placed would perhaps not feel it necessary to make. They deserve every encouragement and support. I hope, having heard what the noble Baroness said, that the review is seriously intended. Otherwise I fear there will be great disappointment.
These are probing amendments. I was about to withdraw them. Does the noble Baroness wish to address the Committee again?
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I reassure him that I

25
would not have said what I said just now if I did not seriously mean that we will be looking at these amendments and hoping that we will be able to come up with something at a later stage in the Bill's course through Parliament. He was a little unfair in saying that sympathy is expressed and then nothing comes of it in the sense that it is too early to say whether nothing will come of it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I take some comfort from that and the fact that there is someone looking over the noble Baroness's shoulder who has every possible reason for having sympathy with these amendments. I hope that she is justified in what she says and 1 therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131 and 131A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) References in this section to study or training are references to study or training on the premises of the employer or (as the case may he) principal or elsewhere.").
The noble Baroness said: I am pleased to introduce Amendment No. 132 which makes it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the phrase, "time off for study or training", which is required to enable young people to access the new right, does not necessarily mean time away from the workplace. The effect of the amendment will also be to re-emphasise that the Bill does not accord greater status to any particular route.
Members of the Committee will recall from Second Reading that some noble Lords raised the concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry about the perceived lower status of study or training undertaken at the workplace. We have listened to those concerns through our regular and very positive contacts with the CBI.
Amendment No. 132 sends a very clear message. The study or training can be undertaken in the workplace, whether actually on the job or elsewhere on site and, for example, via national vocational qualifications. Or it can take place in a college, or with an approved training provider, or elsewhere.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the time that a young person can have will be what is reasonable in all the circumstances, with account taken of the requirements of the study or training as well as the circumstances of the employer's business. This will be especially important for small and medium-sized businesses.
Amendment No. 132 confirms that this is a listening government, willing to work to accommodate the concerns of employers, to ensure that arrangements can be both sensible and flexible. This amendment has been warmly welcomed by the CBI and has its strong support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Turning now to Amendment No. 138, noble Lords will note that this is a technical amendment to Section 58 of the Employment Rights Act, which sets out the right to time off for occupational pension scheme trustees. The amendment is not intended to change the
26
meaning of that section in any way. It is included solely to ensure that the amendment to Section 63A, Amendment No. 132, does not have any adverse effect on the interpretation of that section. Amendment No. 138 is a minor but important amendment which I now also commend to the Committee.
Lord Tope: I rise merely to say that we warmly welcome and support this group of amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
On Question, whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: If it will help the Committee, in opposing the Question that Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill, I should like also to oppose Clause 24. This is the same argument and may save time.
In order to warn any spin doctor who may wish to interpret otherwise, I make it clear at the outset that we entirely support the Government's policy aims that young people should have adequate education. training and skills with which to enter the workforce. We also support the setting of education and training targets to be achieved by young people as they leave school. The Government have our support in encouraging young people to remain in education and/or training to equip them for entering the workplace. Much of what the present Government are doing builds on the achievements of the previous Conservative Government, which were opposed root and branch by Labour Members of Parliament as those measures went through both Houses.
The previous government, for example, introduced the national curriculum, with concentration on the core subjects of literacy and numeracy. Our government also saw the introduction of formal assessments and testing; the introduction of a systematic rolling programme of inspections with a requirement for schools' governing bodies to produce follow-up action plans; the introduction of national education and training targets; the introduction of performance tables, the publication of which provides much of the information which this Government are now finding useful in focusing attention on areas of concern within the education service; the introduction and development of vocational qualifications, GNVQs and NVQs; an improvement in the school staying-on rate and an expansion of participation in further and higher education.
The number of young people entering higher education rose from one-in-eight in 1979 to one-in-three by 1997. Despite what has been said about funding, funding also rose throughout those years. We also secured all-party support for commissioning the Dearing report to address the issue of the financing of higher education into the 21st century. Therefore, that some young people aged 16 and 17 should leave or. in some cases, drop out of education is deeply regrettable and is a cause for concern.

27
However, the proposals contained in Clauses 23 and 24 do not address the problem. They have certainly not been thought through, just as so much of the Bill has not been thought through. One has only to recall the confusion over gap year students, and the Scottish Office concession over tuition fees to Scottish, Southern Irish and continental European students which disadvantaged students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
My two main reasons for opposing Clauses 23 and 24 are, first, that they represent yet another burden on business and, secondly, that the proposals will work against the interests of 16 and 17 year-olds. Therefore, my argument is that the proposals are well intended, but misplaced.
The balance is tilting quite significantly away from employers in favour of employees. European social legislation, as a result of the Government's signing up to the social chapter at the Amsterdam Summit, will create great tensions for all employers, public and private. I refer, for example, to the introduction of the minimum wage; compulsory recognition of trades unions; compulsory European works councils and the possible extension of works councils from large companies to much smaller companies; the introduction of maternal and paternal leave when a baby is born; equal rights for part-time workers; and to the shifting of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases which will mean that in future an employer will be deemed guilty unless he can prove innocence. There is so much more—and this plethora of regulation represents additional costs and additional bureaucracy, together with a loss of freedom; a loss of choice; and a loss of competitiveness and of flexibility for all employers in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister's hectoring and lecturing of the other European member states about competitiveness and flexibility in employment has a very hollow ring. Having abandoned the opt-out of the social chapter and the veto on social legislation which was secured by my right honourable friend John Major, the Prime Minister has opened the door to policies which will destroy the very competitiveness and flexibility which is so critical to a prosperous future for Europe.
Many companies—large, medium and small—provide training and regard it as essential to the success of their businesses. Some provide formal systems of training which dovetail very well into further and higher education qualifications and which are regarded as compatible by many of the accredited awarding bodies. Some, however, provide skills training but on a much more informal on-the-job basis, which serves the needs of both the company and the employee, and which is also consistent with all the workplace health and safety regulations but which may not conform specifically to the regulations and the bureaucracy which will be set out under Clause 23 in new Section 63A(2)(c), the details of which we have yet to see.
Paid time off will cost employers up to £130 million even if only 50 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds take up places. Businesses could be disrupted; substitute
28
employees may be needed to cover for absences, and productivity could be affected. Moreover, these proposals will impact disproportionately on smaller businesses which, according to the Government's own estimates, are the very companies most likely to be approached by this group of young people.
I believe that the proposals will work against the best interests of 16 and 17 year-olds who have no qualifications and who have dropped out of education and training. I should like to give to the Committee three examples of young people who could present themselves for work to an employer. I shall call the first John. He is aged 17 with five GCSEs and an NVQ level 2. Tom is my second example. He is aged 18 and on a New Deal welfare-to-work scheme. Tony is our third example. He is aged 17 and has only one GCSE. My first example, John, aged 17 with five GCSEs and an NVQ level 2, could be employed full-time at the cost to his employer of his salary. Tom, aged 18, on the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, comes to the employer with a weekly bounty, paid for by the Government, of £60 plus £700 upfront costs to cover training. On the other hand, Tony, who is aged 17 and has only one GCSE, comes to the employer at full salary cost, but with a right to have time off regularly for education and training which could last for over a year at the employer's expense.
So employers will have a clear incentive to take on either qualified young people or the New Deal welfare-to-work 18 to 24 year-olds in preference to 16 to 17 year-olds with no qualifications and who carry a cost to the employer over and above their salary. Not only that—in the Government's own view, this group of individuals is unlikely to be motivated and is even alien to the idea of education and training. A great deal is being asked of employers.
If an employer provides training which does not conform to the prescribed conditions to be set out in regulations under new Section 63A(2)(c), he will be obliged under the law to adjust the company training programme at his own expense, although it may have been entirely satisfactory to the company, only to conform to a more bureaucratic system which must be monitored and assessed externally by an accreditation body. That applies to a company which may have only two people in its employ.
It is even more confusing in the area of work and benefits. As I understand it, if you are 16 to 18 years of age and taking part in a course of further education, you cannot claim state benefits; if you are part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme you can claim benefit; if you are 18 plus and on a further education course, you cannot claim benefits, and you must pay tuition fees for some courses; if you are 18 plus and part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, you may claim benefits and be exempt from paying tuition fees for six months; if you are 18 plus and part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, your employer will receive £60 a week, and £700 up front to pay for training; and if you are 16 to 18 and in a job your employer will be required to pay you and shoulder the full cost of a day

29
release programme. Is it any wonder that employers, particularly small employers, find this whole issue perplexing?
For some years now unemployment has been falling and continues to fall across all age levels. In addition, as the results and benefits of the education reforms over the past 10 years work through to school-leavers—the benefits are now beginning to show—more and more young people will leave with better qualifications. We all say "Amen" to that. But for those who do not, government should consider other alternatives; for example, to revisit Option 2 which was set out in the Government's paper Investing in Young People; that is, to continue to encourage employers without invoking the strong arm of the law against them. This is no way to work with and to win the hearts and minds of the private sector.
There must be a more effective way of achieving the policy aim of improving the education and skills of some of the most difficult young people who see no benefit in remaining in state-funded education or training to the age of 18. To pursue the policy in that way, using the strong arm of the law, especially against the smaller employers who need to use all their energies, talents and resources even to survive, is unacceptable.
I oppose these two clauses standing part of the Bill because of the anomalies created by them; the unbelievable complexity of provision for 16 plus young people, whether in or out of education, in or out of work; the inherent unfairness between one young person who receives bounties and benefits and another young person who represents a burden to an employer; the tensions that will result from unmotivated young people and their employer who will be pursued by bureaucrats, and possibly an industrial tribunal, if the employer fails to satisfy the, as yet, unwritten regulations; and they are ill-thought through. Most significantly, I oppose them because they will work against the interests of the very people that they are designed to help—young, unskilled school-leavers.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, and hear what she says about how her points of view will be viewed outside the Chamber. It will be difficult to convince people outside the Chamber that you are in favour of extending training to young people, given that you do not want the clause to stand part of the Bill. I place on the record once again that the Liberal Democrats support the right of young people to have time off from the workplace to ensure that they are properly trained. We recognise that that can happen in a great many other places as well and by many other means, especially with modern technology.
It is hard to believe that some of these arguments were taking place 30 years ago when we were discussing the setting up of the Open University. I have greatly enjoyed the book about Jennie Lee written by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Some of the discussions we have had today and earlier in Committee about higher education and the different ways of learning and using modern technology were being held over 30 years ago. That is dreadful shame.
30
As has already been said this afternoon, all the evidence shows that if the British economy is to be competitive in the next century we must foster high quality, high value-added products. That must be part of our economy. We can achieve that only if we have a well-educated and highly skilled population. There must be flexibility within education and training.
We have seen rapid technological and economic change, which means that people will need a wide range of skills. They will need to be able to communicate, assess, adapt and work with others in this fast moving climate. Training in such skills demands a broad education, to which I believe we are all committed. In addition, we must ensure that more specialised competencies are included. That is what we are talking about in this part of the Bill.
For over 30 years successive governments have acknowledged the need to improve the training of our workforce, but our workforce remains poorly trained when compared with most other developed countries. As has already been said, only about one in seven of our employees receive any training from their employers, although we have made some strides in recent years.
In England and Wales—it is probably less true in Scotland—there has been a failure to straddle the gulf between academic and vocational education. Vocational education has been the poor relation. Training has often been short term and not of the highest quality. That has been the case since the country's good system of apprenticeships was dismantled. There must be parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications. That is an essential first step if we are to have a properly educated and trained workforce.
One of the other factors which is important, and which has been mentioned, is the funding of proper training. At the last general election I was proud to be able to put forward the Liberal Democrats' proposals for how that is to be achieved. I return to the noble Baroness's opening remarks, because we must engender a change of culture. The only way we will do that is by investing in the training of our young people. That is not happening at the moment. We have proposed that one way to fund it—this may answer an earlier question—is to have a training levy. We have proposed a levy of 2 per cent. on the companies' payrolls. Firms providing training opportunities would be able to make deductions against that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is anxious about what will happen to small businesses and the burden which will fall on them. Under a properly constructed training levy small companies employing a few people can be exempt. However, they can provide proper training for their employees. That is particularly important because the small businesses eventually turn into large businesses. Often when the economy is doing well small businesses engage the largest number of new employees. It would be wrong to introduce a system which did not enable small companies to afford to train their employees.
This is an important part of the Bill which we believe can be improved. We believe that all young people under the age of 19 should be included. There is a

31
recognition outside the House that we need to move forward in this respect. Despite the arguments explained most eloquently, as always, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I do not believe that the message will be well received outside this House, and we support the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that people at large are more practical than the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, believes and they may well see problems with the plan. Many people who have done well at the Open University left school with no qualifications or just dropped out. The problem is how to motivate such people. I am thinking of those in the area which I know best; that is, north of the Border. The Bill applies to Scotland, too. There are many young people of 16 and 17 who leave school and are not at all interested in further educational training. Their one motivation is to find a job. Nowadays, they are usually successful after a short time. Many begin by working in a small business; for instance, a shop or a garage. They keep the job for a year or two and become motivated and interested. Often the employer suggests that it would be a good idea if they went to college on day release. More likely, they apply for a better job where training is provided. However, the start of the training is simply having a job.
I worry that if the clause is implemented, many of the small businesses in my area will be reluctant to employ young people. They will have to pay them not only for a full week's work—and they will be away for part of that—hut they will have to employ another young person as a replacement. Perhaps in time they will have to be paid for training.
I have devoted a large part of my life to setting up education and training for such young people—my thoughts go back to months spent setting up the youth training scheme. There was enormous opposition from the party opposite, who later destroyed it because it was not good enough. I realise that one must be realistic; we must start with what young people want, which is a job. Once they start work they will want training and we must provide every incentive for that. However, if employers are forced to provide such training, the jobs market for 16 and 17 year-olds, certainly in my area, will diminish. That would be tragic.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 23, as amended, and Clause 24 provide that 16 and 17 year-olds who are in a job but who have not achieved a certain standard in their education and training, will be entitled to appropriate time off to pursue approved qualifications in the workplace, at college or elsewhere. I am grateful to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their support for this part of the Bill. I am surprised by the opposition to it as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her party. Let us be clear about the importance that the Government place on the provisions. All young people are important and investing in young people is central to our thinking. The provisions fulfil a commitment made in the manifesto. They are about improving the employability of young people. We want
32
all employers, not just some of them, to provide good quality training for young people and by doing so to invest in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that some of her comments amounted to reasons for supporting the clause rather than opposing it. Of course young people are motivated by having a job. Building on that motivation by providing them with good training, whether at work or on release to attend college, is a sensible approach to extending employability for all young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, listed a large number of provisions which the previous government made. Some of them I support and am pleased they are successful. However, despite the changes, one in three adults have not had a single day's education and training since they left school. It is important that when 16 and 17 year-olds leave school and take a job we start them on the road of training so that they can be prepared for a world of lifelong learning.
As I explained on Second Reading, the measure is a key element of our "investing in young people" strategy. It is not an option. The measure will tackle the problem of under achievement among many 16 to 19 year-olds.
I recall that during Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Tope, gave a positive welcome for Clauses 23 and 24, which reflected the encouraging mood of the House towards this important legislation. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised a number of anxieties about the effects of legislation on employers, and those are points to which I shall return. But as the government amendment tabled today shows, we take employers' views seriously and we shall continue to work closely with them.
We know that there are many excellent employers across the country who will already meet the requirements of the legislation through their first-class training and development arrangements for young employees. But our ultimate aim must be to change both attitudes and practices so that all employers, not just the good ones, provide quality education and training for their young employees—or if they cannot or will not, allow others to provide it in their stead.
Clauses 23 and 24 stem from one of the Government's manifesto commitments, so I shall take this opportunity to explain why the Government believe the legislation to be essential and why the clauses should stand part of the Bill. In the UK, at the end of 1996 there were an estimated 115.000 young people aged 16 to 17 in employment not qualified to Level 2 and not working towards a Level 2 qualification. While it is pleasing that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year-olds in Great Britain—using the ILO definition—fell from about 16 per cent. in the summer of 1997 to about 13 per cent. in the autumn of 1997, that rate remains at twice the national average. That seems to me to provide ample justification for the emphasis, and significant resources, that we are placing on improving the skills and employability of that age group as a whole.

33
I return to the 16 and 17 year-olds, who are the subject of this legislation. We are concerned that large numbers of young people in the UK each year will continue to fail to reach level 2, the very basic level of attainment which is an absolute prerequisite for sustained and future employability. Level 2 qualifications also provide the foundation for further learning and career progression. The consequences of failure for the young people, for employers and for the Government are clear: the likelihood of higher rates of unemployment in the future; a smaller pool of people who have reached the threshold of skill which makes them valued employees; and some young people withdrawing from the labour market altogether. More young people will therefore be at greater risk of being socially excluded. The cost to the individual young person, to the economy and to society would continue to be high and I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that no one should be written off as a total failure at the age of 16.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised questions about the interaction of those provisions with the New Deal. Those two areas of policy cover different age groups. This legislation covers 16 and 17 year-olds; the New Deal is for 18 to 24 year-olds who have been long-term unemployed and claiming jobseeker's allowance for a minimum of six months and in many cases many months longer. The design of the New Deal—its gateway and assignment to personal advisers—recognises that long-term unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds need in-depth advice so that they may resolve any personal problems, set realistic occupational goals and overcome the many barriers that they face in relation to both self-confidence and motivation.
Another key difference relates to geographic spread. I understand that 16 and 17 year-olds in employment without training are far more geographically dispersed than the New Deal client group, who are much more heavily concentrated in relatively few areas. I understand also that an extensive survey of employers—small as well as large—undertaken by Manchester TEC showed that current employment of 16 and 17 year-olds was not expected to be affected adversely by the New Deal.
The Government recognise that there is a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments. But we believe that that will be a local rather than national issue. However, we shall monitor closely the impact of the New Deal and will be able to assess its possible interaction with other policies. Of course that is important, but it is quite right to give priority to those young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months. But we wish to ensure that that does not put at risk the opportunities for 16 and 17 year-olds, a group who have the benefit of other opportunities such as modern apprenticeships, national traineeships and other government supported work-based training. But it is a group also which does not always take up those opportunities.
We are looking for a culture in which all young people in work, or not, stay on in learning to acquire the skills and qualifications which will make them
34
employable in the long term. The focus of the New Deal is on unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds. The focus of this legislation is on very young employees aged 16 and 17. If we successfully help the 16 and 17 year-olds to achieve the skills and qualifications they need, there should be fewer who, a few years later, will need the help of initiatives like the New Deal. That is part of the focus of these measures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has focused on the burdens and cost to businesses. And it is true that we have estimated that the compliance costs to businesses will be between £60 million and £130 million per year. The noble Baroness quoted the higher of those figures. But the House might wish to note that this will vary very much according to the rate of take-up on the part of young people; the time the young people are away from fully productive work and undertaking appropriate education or training; and on any absence cover that may or may not be required.
But it is essential to stress that those costs must he seen against the benefits to employers and to the economy at large of a more highly trained workforce. I am sure that the Committee will agree that training and education are an investment. They are a vital investment for the country's future prosperity, for improved business performance and for giving young people the skills they need in our rapidly changing labour market. The returns on the investment for employers are the higher skill levels of their current young employees and a better trained national workforce from which to recruit in the future.
It is only fair that employers contribute significantly to the investment, given the returns to them from better trained young employees. Wages, of course, will be a matter for the young person and the employer concerned. Time for study or training gives employers the opportunity to raise the skills of their young employees: and, as we have set out in the regulatory appraisal, the Government will also contribute significantly to the overall education or training costs.
The costs of not investing in young people's skills are high, both in terms of the economic costs to businesses and the costs to young people and society from denying some young people the opportunity to improve their skills and employability. And a lack of investment in our young people is felt even more acutely by small employers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made quite a lot of the position of small businesses. Small firms need better trained employees to sustain and improve their business performance. Many small firms already invest in training for their young employees. All small firms should seek to invest in training, rather than expect to benefit from training paid for by other small firms. That seems only fair.
The legislation represents an entitlement for the individual. Many young people work for small firms and it is essential that they are covered by the legislation: to do otherwise would carry the risk of denying these young people the opportunity to improve their skills and longer-term employability.

35
Sustainable employment in today's rapidly changing markets for goods and services requires more competitive businesses, with higher productivity levels and higher added value. This, in turn, requires more skilled, adaptable and flexible employees. Better education and training are vital to young people's employability in both the short and long term. Unemployment among 20 to 24 year-olds qualified to Level 2 is 40 per cent. lower than those with no qualifications.
It is surely better to give young people the opportunity to acquire now the skills they need for their longer term employability rather than have to seek to do it later and have intermediate years of young people moving in and out of short-term jobs and unemployment, with no long-term prospects to get the skills and qualifications they need.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords mentioned a letter that they had received from the CBI. I, too, have seen the letter and I should like to quote from the opening paragraphs of the briefing note:
"The CBI fully shares the Government's ambitious objectives for raising 16 to 18 year-olds' education and skills levels, and we have consistently argued that under 18 year-olds who have left full-time education must continue to receive opportunities for structured education, leading to nationally recognised qualifications. We therefore fully support the idea of a 'right to study' and accept the obligations this places on employers".
I am delighted to have received this enthusiastic support from the nation's employers. I do not know whether today the noble Baroness intends to press her opposition to Clauses 23 and 24 standing part of the Bill. However, I should point out to Members of the Committee that, if they were to decide that these provisions should not stand part of the Bill, the scope of the Bill would be fundamentally altered. The Long Title of the Bill would need to be reworked to reflect the narrower coverage of the legislation.
In practical terms, Members of the Committee should understand that the effect would be that when the Bill comes to be debated in the other place the change in scope would prevent any debate, or tabling of amendments, on "time to study". There would be no opportunity for those in another place to consider this vitally important manifesto commitment. An unelected Chamber would be dictating the topics upon which the elected Government could legislate. That is clearly an issue of some constitutional importance. Therefore, I urge Members of the Committee to consider most carefully the ramifications of their stance on this point.
At present. young people aged 16 and 17 have a very wide range of opportunities to help them to gain qualifications at Level 2, if they are not already there. If they enter into employment, we are determined that they, too, should have the chance to carry on learning. That is why the right to study was a manifesto commitment; that is why we are legislating; and that is why the success of Clauses 23 and 24 is so important.
36
I therefore urge Members of the Committee to agree that Clause 23, as amended, and Clause 24 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blotch: I should like, first, to say how grateful I am for the amazingly detailed and carefully thought-through reply that the Minister has given to the point. I shall repeat what I said in my opening remarks when I expressed my opposition to the fact that these clauses should stand part of the Bill. I agree with almost 70 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what the Minister said about the importance of improving the skills, education and training of this group of young people. They are people who already have a right to stay in education; they have a right to stay on at school; and they have a right to move into further and higher education.
I should like to narrow down my concerns about the clauses. They relate to the unfairness of the sharing of the burden of cost. It is interesting to note that the burden of cost is much less on the Government. For example, the Government, who already have an obligation to meet the financial costs of any young person staying in sixth form education or moving into further education, are bearing only £40 million of those costs for the education and training provision, with £12 million for the careers service and—Heaven forfend!—£700,000 for industrial tribunals to come down on those employers who do not conform. On the other hand, £60 million to £130 million represent the compliance costs if only 50 per cent. of young people take up the places. Therefore, I make no apologies for going to the upper end of that figure because when 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of young people discover that they can get a full-time job with pay for five days a week, together with a day out, it may well become an attractive option.
As I said, I am concerned about the whole matter for different reasons. I am sorry that neither the Minister nor the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, are concerned about a most important point that I made in my opening remarks. What worries me is the following: an employer may be faced with the possibility of a young person coming to him with a bounty paid for by the Government; he could also be approached by a young person with all the qualifications, certainly beyond the minimum qualifications which will be set out in the regulations; but he could also be confronted by a young person with an obligation not only to pay him full time but also to give him time off at the company's expense, with the proviso that if the company does not comply it will be breaking the law. I believe that that would act against the best interests of 16 and 17 year-olds.
Neither the Minister nor the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the sadness of these young people, probably among the most difficult, who have not seen the benefits of staying on at school in education; the ones who are the most recalcitrant when it comes to going into any kind of formal scheme; and indeed the ones who will be the most difficult to handle. Employers will be required to give them paid time off. However, what do they do if these young people end up, as is so

37
often the case, wandering the streets of the local town? There is nothing in the Bill which confers anything other than a right to the young person; in other words, there is no responsibility imposed upon him in that respect.
Moreover, there is no ending to the time off for these young people taking such a course. In fact, it says in the paper, Investing in Young People, that they can even go into their 18th year as regards such courses if the stated level of education has not been achieved. Therefore, it could actually be a very long-term commitment for an employer. I have already mentioned that 97 per cent. of employers in this country employ fewer than 20 people and that 2.7 million of 4 million employers employ no one; indeed, they are self-employed, sole traders, and so on. We are talking about putting a very considerable burden on small businesses.
The Minister made a most important point and one which I actually support; namely, that what is needed is a change of culture. However, I believe that that is already coming about. I was very heartened both in my time at the education department and during my time at the Home Office by just how much businesses are now working with "Business in the Community", and taking part in many voluntary schemes. They are also introducing mentoring schemes and allowing people from their companies to twin with other young people in the community who have difficulties either in the mainstream education system or as they leave it. Indeed, they are doing so much to improve the lot of the group of people who are the subject of these clauses. As I said. 1 believe that that change in culture is already taking place. It is a great pity that the Government have chosen this time to use the strong arm of the law to enforce this particular proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made a point earlier with which I absolutely agree. He said that there will be difficulties for small companies but that it is only right to encourage them. I entirely agree with that view. However, this is not encouraging them: it is using the law to make them comply. There is no flexibility and no allowance for understanding the difficulties of small companies. If the small company does not comply, it will find itself before a tribunal. That is another of my concerns.
As I said, I do not disagree with the issue which needs to be addressed here, but why should the cost of education and training for the most difficult of our young people be a responsibility predominantly placed upon the employer? Whenever the Government talk about business, commerce and consultations they refer only to the CBI. Indeed, the Minister did so today, as she has on many previous occasions. However, I have to tell the noble Baroness that the Institute of Directors is decidedly unhappy about these proposals. Moreover, I spoke only this morning to the Federation of Small Businesses which is most concerned about the matter. They have said what I have been saying; namely, they want to co-operate with the Government and they understand that there is a problem. They believe that the more young people who are better equipped, better trained and better skilled to enter the workforce the better it will be for everyone—for companies, for families, for communities and
38
for the country. But they are worried about the circumscription and compulsory nature of the clause. It may well be that some bureaucrat's interpretation of what is equivalent to NVQ Level 2 is not complied with.
I shall watch the end of the consultations. Some reputable, large companies in this country are in consultation at present with the Government on welfare-to-work schemes. Those companies have good in-house training schemes which serve the company and employee well and send young people out as well adjusted, trained young people. However, the training by those companies does not confirm specifically with the bureaucratic interpretation. In other words, external assessors will be allowed to insist on a change of those programmes in order to secure the co-operation of those companies with the welfare-to-work schemes. It would be deeply unfortunate if the outcome of these well intentioned proposals is that employers refuse to take on 16 to 17 year-olds simply because they come not only with an obligation but with a retinue of bureaucrats who will crawl all over the training and employment systems and job programmes. Those employers are doing a thunderingly good job in creating work and trade for this country and for the young employees.
I refer to the compulsory nature of this scheme and the unfair spread of costs to the employer, in particular as regards small employers. The proposal will surely promote discrimination against young people. Three young people come before an employer, one with no obligations other than for the employer to employ and pay him; one comes with a bounty from the Government; and one comes with a real obligation to the employer and, if it is not fulfilled, the employer will find himself on the wrong side of the law.
I conclude with these two questions. How many long-term unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds are there at present? How many 16 to 17 year-olds have a training or education level comparable with or below NVQ Level 2?
I take seriously the constitutional arguments put forward by the noble Baroness about this House removing a provision from the Bill which will mean that another place cannot debate the issue. It is right that the other place should debate it. It is right that the Government continue to justify this heavy-handed approach to small businesses in this country. The same ends could be achieved by working with industry and commerce, so that they co-operate with the Government on what we agree is an important policy.
I hope that the points are well made. The arguments relate to unfairness and discrimination against young people aged 16 and 17.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"The present regime of weapons inspections was put in place in Iraq following the Gulf War as part of the ceasefire agreement. Its objectives are to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Iraq reviving the capacity to develop, produce, stockpile and deploy such weapons of mass destruction. Despite repeated obstruction from the Iraqi regime, UNSCOM's achievements have been significant. Since its inception, UNSCOM has destroyed 38,000 weapons with the capability to deliver chemical and biological agents; it has also destroyed significant quantities of production equipment and associated facilities. But serious gaps remain in Iraq's Full. Final and Complete Declarations, particularly in the field of biological weapons. Were UNSCOM's work to be halted now, Iraq would be able to generate biological weapons within a matter of weeks, and could achieve a chemical capability within months. It is vital for the continuing security of the region and more widely that UNSCOM be allowed full and unrestricted access to all sites that it wishes to inspect and as much time as it needs to complete its task.
"On 12th January UNSCOM began a new inspection aimed at uncovering concealed activities. The Iraqi regime blocked the inspection on the specious grounds of an alleged US bias on inspection teams. This particular inspection, led by Mr. Scott Ritter, a US citizen with a distinguished record of work for UNSCOM. consisted of 44 personnel from 17 different countries. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler was in Baghdad last week for talks with Tariq Aziz aimed at resolving the crisis. The results were disappointing. Ambassador Butler's briefing to the Security Council on 23rd January immediately after his visit made clear that the Iraqis are determined to persist with their policy of obstruction. Iraq's attempt to impose a moratorium on inspections of so-called "Presidential" sites pending the outcome of technical evaluation meetings, announced during Ambassador Butler's visit, is unacceptable, as is the deadline given by Saddam Hussein for UNSCOM to complete its work. It is not for Iraq to dictate terms and conditions to the Security Council. Unrestricted access to all sites is essential for UNSCOM's work both now and for longer-term monitoring. The technical evaluation meetings, which will look at Iraq's declarations on its past programmes, are an entirely separate issue.
"We are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to Iraq's latest attempts to obstruct the vital work of UNSCOM. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others are in regular contact with colleagues on the Security Council, in an effort to defuse the situation. But we cannot rule out military action if the diplomatic
40
approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance. As a precautionary measure, HMS "Invincible" arrived in the Gulf on 25th January, and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces off the coast of Bahrain. We are keeping the situation under close review and have not ruled out further deployments should the crisis continue. There are no immediate plans to deploy extra forces. HMS "Illustrious", which is at present in Gibraltar, will embark a detachment of RAF Harriers tomorrow and will then commence work-up training in the Mediterranean.
"Iraq is fully aware of its international obligations and what it needs to do for the process of relaxing sanctions to begin: relevant Security Council resolutions make this perfectly clear. The Security Council is united in its demand for Iraqi compliance. There is no question of entering into negotiations with Iraq. Security Council resolutions are non-negotiable.
"The Government remain very conscious of the sufferings of the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel. The UK has provided £94 million in aid to the Iraqi people since 1991. Much of this money has been used to fund projects by UK NG0s, including Mines Advisory Group, which is also involved in a major mine-clearing operation, and Save The Children Fund, which is focusing on water and sanitation projects aimed at helping children. The UK has also co-sponsored successive UNSC resolutions, allowing Iraq to export oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. For several years, Saddam chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to provide for his people under this scheme; since its implementation in 1996, oil-for-food has faced a number of cynical obstructive tactics by the Iraqi regime. For the sake of the people of Iraq. we remain prepared to discuss with Iraq ways of improving the scheme's effectiveness."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the Opposition share the Government's deep concern about the current situation in Iraq. Likewise, we, too, deplore this latest attempt by Saddam Hussein to seek to defy the will of the international community by refusing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. In government and now in opposition we supported the UN efforts to end President Saddam Hussein's programmes for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and to enforce the UN no fly zones over Iraq. These were the conditions laid down by the UN if international sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted.
The position is straightforward. The international community has guaranteed to lift sanctions when Iraq has been given a clean bill of weapons health: when a monitoring process is in place to stop such weapons being rebuilt; and when Saddam Hussein is no longer able to threaten his neighbours with germ warfare or with chemical and nuclear weapons. If Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted, the key to achieving this lies in his own hands: namely, full compliance with Security Council resolutions, including as a first step

41
unrestricted and unconditional access for UNSCOM inspectors, and an acceptance that it is for the chairman of UNSCOM to determine the composition of inspection teams, and not Saddam Hussein.
Faced with the current unacceptable situation, the Opposition welcome the Statement made today and welcome the statement made by the Security Council on 14th January. The latter deplored Iraq's decision to halt the work of UNSCOM's inspection team and determined that such a failure by Iraq to fulfil its obligations under Security Council resolutions was unacceptable and a clear violation. The Opposition also welcome the Government's policy to stand firm with the United States in taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Security Council's decisions are respected, and to make it clear that Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply with UN weapons inspections in Iraq.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister six short questions in connection with the Statement. First, given that Foreign Minister Primakov acted as an intermediary in the previous crisis, has the Security Council asked the Russians to take any action to help to resolve this present crisis, given their special relationship with Iraq? What indications have France, China and Russia given that, together with the United Kingdom and the United States, they too will not rule out any option to ensure that Saddam Hussein respects the will of the international community? Have any other members of the Gulf coalition taken the sensible precautionary defence measures of the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons we are able to play such an important role is because of our ability to project forces into the region at short notice, such as the deployment of the aircraft carrier HMS "Invincible"? Can the Minister confirm that the foreign policy based line of the strategic defence review recommends the retention of Britain's aircraft carrier capability?
In another place this afternoon the Minister indicated that he would consider a relaxation of the oil-for-food programme if used for humanitarian purposes. Can the Minister provide the House with details of what the Foreign Secretary might have in mind? Do the Government agree that the success of the Gulf operation in 1991 depended greatly on the support of Kuwait and Iraq's neighbours? In the event of military action against Iraq, does the Minister believe that such similar support would be forthcoming?
On the subject of the Arab League, does the Minister agree that there is a dangerous perception of an anti-American backlash among Arab states, some of whose views are based on the belief that the US will never lift sanctions while Saddam Hussein is in power, therefore giving him no incentive to comply; that sanctions have caused the Iraqis to suffer disproportionately; that the Americans operate a double standard in respect of the treatment of Israel and Iraq; and their fear that a severely weakened American President facing a domestic crisis might look to enhance his reputation on the international stage? What impact do the Government think the refusal of Arab states to endorse a military solution to the Iraqi crisis has had on US/Arab relations? What implications does this have for
42
the future security of the region and the influence and credibility of the United States to negotiate in a future crisis? From these Benches I assure the Government of our committed and unconditional support in the action they take to ensure that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I rise to pledge the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the sombre statement the Minister has repeated to the House. Will the Minister remind the House that one of the reasons we have to press for completion of UNSCOM's mission is that Saddam Hussein has clearly demonstrated in the past that he is not to be trusted on the matter of weapons manufacture? Indeed, there have been several occasions when Iraq has declared that all has been revealed when we have discovered subsequently that all has not been revealed. That was particularly the case after General Hussein Kamal had fled to Amman and produced further information. That lack of trustworthiness is to be noted in the fact that when Hussein Kamal returned to Iraq under promise of amnesty he and his family were brutally murdered in Baghdad.
If anyone is in doubt about the nature of the regime they should note that only last week some eight people were brutally murdered in Amman—five of them Iraqi citizens and three of them not—presumably by agents of Saddam Hussein. It is because we are dealing with someone who is not open to the normal diplomatic niceties that we have to insist that UNSCOM is able to complete its mission.
On the question of humanitarian aid, as the Minister knows, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and I went to Baghdad a couple of years ago to study the situation. We were convinced of the dire need of the Iraqi people to receive more help in terms of medicine in particular but also food and other supplies. We have found our advocacy of the easing of sanctions positively frustrated by the attitude of Saddam Hussein and by his general behaviour. We also noted that while the Iraqi Government claim to be short of cash as regards the essential needs of their citizens, there appears to be no shortage of cash for the continued building of presidential palaces and monuments.
I refer to a point made by the Opposition spokesman. Will the Minister consider carefully whether there are ways to improve the somewhat bureaucratic process of delivering the oil-for-food programme to the people of Iraq? As the statement mentioned, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, but there is a need to use every possible avenue to help them while not helping their unfortunate ruler.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Steel, for their support. I regret that it was a sombre statement that I had to repeat to the House this afternoon, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said. It is reassuring that the House is so united on these points. I thank both noble Lords for their comments.

43
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked a number of detailed questions which I shall now try to answer as best I can. He asked in particular about the role of Mr. Primakov as an intermediary. The Statement mentioned that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in touch with our colleagues on the Security Council both collectively and bilaterally. As I understand it, all attempts will be made to resolve this crisis through diplomatic channels. I am sure that Mr. Primakov will take part in the discussions about the most suitable way of approaching such diplomatic channels.
As regards our colleagues in France. China and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the Security Council presidential statement of 14th January reiterates its demand that Iraq co-operates fully, immediately and unconditionally with the special commission. The council is determined that Iraq's failure to do so would be seen as a clear violation of the SCRs. The noble Lord also asked about other countries in the area. Of course other countries in the area have a part to play here. As we have seen before, Saddam's aggression to other countries in that part of the world has put them at times in a difficult position. We shall of course, through diplomatic channels, do everything we can to discuss the current difficult position with them.
The noble Lord also asked about the implications of the current crisis in terms of the Strategic Defence Review. I have had occasion previously to tell the House that the Strategic Defence Review will bear in mind the absolute necessity to safeguard the security of the people of this country. That is the obligation of all governments; it is one which Her Majesty's Government take quite as seriously as any of their predecessors.
The noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked about possible negotiations around "oil-for-food". We are not ruling out an increase in the amount of oil sold, but first we need first to ensure that the present scheme is operating effectively. Benon-Sevan, the head of the UN 986 1111 and 1143 implementation unit is working on a report of that nature. We look forward to receiving that report—at which time we shall discuss the expansion with Security Council partners. The matter will come under active consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also talked about an anti-American backlash. I hope that we have made clear on other occasions in discussing the problems of the Middle East that these matters have to be addressed in a way that brings into play a number of different countries in that part of the world. It is essential to remember what we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein, who is attempting to dictate to the Security Council. Once again, the Government of Iraq have shown their utter contempt for the will of the whole international community. We must not lose sight of that point.
The questions raised by the noble Lord. Lord Steel, about the capability of Saddam Hussein to build up his arsenal of weapons must he matters for your Lordships' House to keep in constant view. UNSCOM has repeatedly stated that we do not as yet have the full picture. Iraq's declarations on its weapons of mass
44
destruction leave many questions unanswered. Particular concern ranges around the questions of biological and chemical warfare programmes. Prior to the Gulf War. Iraq produced enough chemical and biological weapons material to kill the world's population several times over. It continues to try to procure weapons technology. UNSCOM has destroyed more weapons than were destroyed in the course of the Gulf War. Its achievement should not be under-estimated. That is why the continuation of its work at this time is a matter of international importance.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it must be very gratifying for the Government to have the support of both the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party. I must confess that I do not feel quite so happy. I do not under-rate the difficulties facing the Security Council, and indeed leading members of the Security Council such as the United States and ourselves, in dealing with a dictator whose actions we know, which we deplore deeply and whom we would wish to see removed. But we may be about to embark on military action.
I have no difficulty with military action when I am quite clear that the cause is just and the objective is clear, but I am not yet certain about that. Is the purpose of military action, if it has to come about, to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson? Is it to re-open the means of inspection? Or is it to remove Saddam Hussein? We need some guidance about that if doubts are to be removed. In my judgment there is little doubt that military action of this sort will not only unite his people behind him but will also turn a certain number of Middle East countries which are not very happy about western Security Council policy at the present time towards moral support for him, with more consequences perhaps for the Middle East talks in which Israel and the other Middle East countries are now having a quite difficult time. I am sure that both countries will think very deeply before they embark on military action. However, as it is in the Government's mind, I should like to be a little clearer as to the objective.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in my opening Statement, I hope I made it clear to the House that every possible means through diplomatic channels will be taken in order to avoid the need for any military action. I say again to the noble Lord. Lord Callaghan, of course the importance of avoiding military action is uppermost in the minds of all of us. The Government will not wish to put the lives of British troops at risk if that is in any way avoidable. But the noble Lord asked: what is the objective?
The objectives are to secure compliance with the Security Council resolutions, not to remove Saddam Hussein. The Security Council resolutions were part and parcel of the way in which we ended the Gulf War. Undertakings were given at that time. The UN agreed as to how to go forward. We cannot now have Saddam Hussein flouting agreements reached at that time on the basis that there would be free access of inspection to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not being

45
developed. That is the objective: not to allow such weapons to flourish in Iraq; not to allow at this time, perhaps very significantly near to the 10th anniversary of the dreadful events that happened in Halabja, the awful mass destruction that took place there. We must bear that in mind. The objective is to ensure that such weapons are not allowed to proliferate in Iraq.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the Minister's remarks in talking about the overall objectives, and to follow also the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about the use of military force. I wonder whether the Minister can help the House a little more by spelling out what might be the military objectives. It is one thing to talk in overall terms, as she has; but as we found out only too clearly during the Gulf War, the military objectives had to be clearly spelt out. If we are going to put the lives of service men and women at risk, the country, as well as the services, needs to know what the military objectives might be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question, but I do not think we are at the point where spelling out military objectives can be of any help—certainly not to our own forces, and 1 very much doubt whether it would be to the forces with whom we would wish to be talking through UN channels. Such military objectives would have to be discussed through the UN and through the proper channels. I do not think that a Member of Her Majesty's Government saying in public what those objectives might be would be in the interest of the soldiers, airmen and seamen who would be defending Her Majesty's Government's stance at the moment. It is hardly sensible to spell out military objectives at this juncture.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my question relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said. Does the Minister remember that in our debate on 15th January I pointed out that one of the main factors in making the Palestinian peace process so intractable was the terror which exists in that part of the world because Saddam Hussein has the chemical and biological weapons? The Minister said that she would write to me about it. She did not do so. But she sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf, and I take that as roughly the equivalent of a letter.
In that connection, in the diplomatic discussions going on with our friends and partners, particularly in Europe, is attention being paid to ensuring that no further help goes in the form of either expertise or equipment to Saddam Hussein which would assist in that programme? There is doubt as to whether the barriers to that have been altogether efficacious. It is sad for us that persons trained in this country appear to be playing a prominent part in the preparation of weapons.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord has not yet received a letter. I signed one to him in the past couple of days, and I apologise if it has not yet reached him.
46
The noble Lord mentions the position of our European Union partners. The European Union has been supporting the UN in its efforts to secure Iraqi compliance. Iraq has consistently been discussed at all levels in the European Union during the past month. Our partners are supporting the approach that the United Kingdom Government are taking.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that we need to secure compliance with Resolution 688. But is she telling the House that a strike by a few Cruise missiles on whatever targets can be imagined within Iraq will persuade Saddam Hussein to toe the line when all diplomatic efforts have failed? Will she think carefully about the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the consequences to our relationships not only with the Arab world but with other members of the Security Council, particularly France and Russia, if the United States and Britain were to take action unilaterally?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government and all our allies will think very carefully before the use of any military force. I remind the noble Lord of what I said in my Statement:
"we cannot rule out military action if the diplomatic approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance".
It is not an offer to move into the kind of military arena which the noble Lord described to us. Far from it. It is only something to be considered should actions and discussions which are going on at the moment through diplomatic channels fail.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, my noble friend said that the military objectives would have to be discussed later through United Nations channels. Does that mean that in the opinion of the Government there will have to he another Security Council resolution before military action can be taken, or will that be unnecessary?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Iraq's failure to comply with UNSCOM is a clear breach of its obligations under Security Council resolutions, particularly Security Council Resolution 687, which was the ceasefire resolution. Iraq has threatened regional peace and security many times over the past 20 years. Its weapons of mass destruction programme is a clear threat to regional neighbours. Past experience shows that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to turn the weapons against his neighbours or his own people.
The question of exactly what would happen in relation to military action would of course depend on the circumstances in which Her Majesty's Government and our allies find ourselves, should our discussions through diplomatic channels fail.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement informing the House of what action has been taken so far. Can she inform us what action has been taken to warn British citizens and other western European citizens working and living in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government issue advice on a

47
day-by-day basis to places around the entire globe where there are difficulties because of the regime in power, because of geographical problems or because of natural disasters. Such information is available on a daily basis from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Gulf War ended too soon? A good deal of the trouble would have been avoided had it gone on for a little while longer. Will she ensure that should further military action be necessary—and I sincerely hope that it will not he—it is not circumscribed in the way it was previously? I hope that my noble friend will not answer that question!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish to make one point on that. When the Gulf War ended agreements were made. There was a ceasefire agreement endorsed by a Security Council resolution. We all had reason to believe that we had secured the objectives. It is because Saddam Hussein will not stand by the ceasefire agreement that we are in the difficulty that we face today.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, would it help the Government's position if they were to make more of the humanitarian crisis within Iraq, especially with our European neighbours? We are talking about a country which has tumbled; 100 million dollars has been lost from the economy since the Gulf War. This is not the same situation as the Gulf War. There would have to be a lot of convincing of British people as well as our European neighbours. Will the Minister confirm the figures, for example, from UNICEF, that 960,000 children are malnourished? She mentioned humanitarian aid, but would it not he better to raise the humanitarian profile?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the humanitarian profile of the suffering of the people of Iraq is well understood in the United Kingdom. We are very concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people. but let there be no mistake about it: the suffering of the Iraqi people can be laid directly at the door of Saddam Hussein. He has made it clear that he has other priorities over and above the welfare of his people, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, reminded us.
Saddam Hussein has many palaces. Since the Gulf War he has built these luxurious presidential residences using money that should have been used to purchase humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. That includes Iraqi children, as we had cause to discuss in your Lordships' House some weeks ago. Saddam Hussein has spent the money on trying illegally to import weapons of mass destruction to replace those found and destroyed by UNSCOM. Again, the money should have been used to purchase humanitarian supplies.
No one in your Lordships' House should be in any doubt. Saddam Hussein has deliberately taken what we can only describe as a cynical, wicked decision to allow the Iraqi people to starve in order to increase pressure on the international community. The international community may be suffering from sanctions fatigue. He
48
hopes that as a result we will give in and lift sanctions. It is difficult to believe that any leader of any country could use his people in such a wicked and manipulative way, but Saddam Hussein has done so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to raise one point in relation to the Russian diplomatic initiative to which the Minister referred. While the Russians may have followed the letter of the United Nations sanctions as regards trade, are the Government aware that the Russians have over the past two years given a great deal of technical assistance to the Iraqis in the identification of major new oil reserves and their potential development? Is the Minister further aware that the return for this assistance will come with the ending of sanctions? Do the Government recognise that we should at least bear this in mind in assessing the role of the Russians in negotiating for a solution? It may be that it influences for the good; it may be that it does not.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the points the noble Lord raises, but any Russia-Iraq deals have been essentially bilateral. They are not relevant to the United Kingdom or to the Security Council. I have made it clear that we shall try to pursue a resolution of this crisis through all diplomatic channels. If there are diplomatic channels through Russia that can be used. that is infinitely preferable to the military options which have been alluded to this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure the whole House subscribes to the Minister's description of Saddam Hussein and I am sure the whole House would be happy to see him deposed. But I think the whole House, too, would welcome the note of caution that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We have to think ahead. If Saddam Hussein calls our bluff. do we then proceed? Supposing we have exhausted all the diplomatic options, does the Minister believe that a process of bombing Iraq will achieve our objective? What is our objective? Our objective is our ability to examine the production of destructive weapons in Iraq. Does the Minister really believe that the military option will achieve that objective? It is much more likely to achieve a general conflagration in the Middle East, because the bombing of Iraq will inevitably rally substantial Arab support. Therefore, let us do everything humanly possible—I welcome her assurance that she will pursue diplomatic channels—but let us anticipate some of the consequences of the action we are threatening this afternoon.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure the House again that Her Majesty's Government will examine, as the noble Lord said. everything humanly possible to avoid the military option. However, we have to remember that Saddam Hussein could be described as a classic bully. The problem with bullies is that if one disengages too soon

49
they do not step back. They go on with their objective, which may in the end be very much worse than confronting them at an appropriate moment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry but the House has agreed that discussion on Statements should not exceed 20 minutes after the Front Bench speakers.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
5.34 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 24 [Further provisions as to time off for study or training]:
[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 22. line 27, leave out ("section I 6(5))") and insert ("subsection (2A) below)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The amendments all hang together. We now return to a theme which became familiar on the first day of the Committee stage. I refer to the skeletal nature of the Bill and the amount of flesh that is to be put on the bones by way of regulations.
On the first day of Committee the Minister explained that we were having to do it this way round because it was desirable to take the legislative slot in the parliamentary programme, to present the Bill at the earliest opportunity and to carry out the necessary consultation at best consecutive with the legislative process and perhaps some of it after the legislative process. He said that, therefore, the regulations could not be made until the consultation had been completed. 1 hope that is an accurate paraphrase of the position. Concern has been expressed throughout the Committee stage about the apparent lack of opportunity to discuss the flesh that is to be put on the bones. The purpose of these amendments is simply to ask that those regulations come back to Parliament and that we have a chance to look at them again.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in replying to one of the many points made, described this as a cumbersome process. I am not at all sure that it is a cumbersome process. It is an important process, cumbersome or not, and one that we should return to. Otherwise, we are simply being asked to give the Government a blank cheque on what is a skeletal Bill. Others with much more parliamentary experience than I have said that it is the most skeletal Bill they have seen in their time in Parliament.
Amendment No. 133 paves the way for Amendment No. 135. Clause 1(3) deals with the regulations governing the general teaching council. which was a
50
matter of great concern to us on the first day of the Committee stage. Clause 5(1) deals with regulations the Minister may make giving additional functions to the GTC, which was again a matter of great concern to us. Clause 13(1) deals with regulations governing the induction period for newly-trained teachers, another subject of discussion on the first day of Committee. Clause 16 deals with the regulations concerning student loans and grants, a matter which I am sure is fresh in all your Lordships' minds.
I acknowledge straight away that the wording of Amendment No. 136 may need to be tightened up as I recognise that regulations are made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, there is a definition to that effect in the Bill. What we are trying to get at here—I am sure the intention is understood—is that the powers should lie with the general teaching council to decide on a whole range of matters—those we debated on the first day. If the Minister is able to accept our intention I am sure we can find an acceptable form of words to put that into practice.
This is a return to a familiar theme. We seek to give this House and another place an opportunity to look at the important and substantial flesh that still needs to be put on the bones of this skeletal Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134
Earl Russell: My late noble friend Lady Seear used to describe widely-drafted regulation-making powers as clauses saying that the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. There is substance in that description. The clauses to which the amendments of my noble friend Lord Tope are addressed have a very widely drafted power. For example, Clause 5(1) states,
"The Secretary of State may by order confer or impose on the Council such additional functions as he considers they may appropriately discharge in conjunction with any of their other functions under this Chapter".
Secretaries of State have considered many things in their time and some, shall we say, are a little unexpected. While the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments may describe something as an, "unexpected use of power", which is a valuable provision, I have known regulations carried in this Chamber despite such a finding from the joint committee. Therefore, it is important that we should look at what the Secretary of State does with these powers.
It is often said that, under the negative resolution procedure, Members of this House can put down a Prayer and scrutinise the Instrument. That happens much more often in this House than it does in another place. We should remember that any regulations should be properly scrutinised in both Houses. I have also known occasions in this House when it has proved impossible to get a Prayer on regulations debated simply because

51
there was not time. That is regrettable, but it happens. I believe that my noble friend has moved an important amendment and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Blatch: I support this amendment. There is a plethora of advice about the powers to which the Government refer and claim to use in order to introduce tuition fees. It is questionable. So far we have had debates at Committee stage on false premises.
While the Government claim that Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act allows student or parental resources to be taken into account in making an award to a student, that section does not authorise the imposition of fees. As I understand it, Clause 18 of the Bill does that. That has never been divulged by the noble Baroness or the Minister. Clause 18(4) empowers the Government to force institutions to introduce fees at a specified level. Of itself the clause does not create a power to levy fees, but goes on to assume that higher education institutions already have the power to charge fees.
Therefore, the question is whether the Government have sufficient powers to make exemptions for those such as gap-year students to whom they undertook initially to apply the system of student support. I believe that the Government's difficulty is that Clause 16 does not provide an obvious route to make such exemptions. Clause 18(5) shows the level of fees controlled by the maximum amount of the grant. Under Clause 16(2)(b) students under the old system are entitled to a grant that covers any existing fee, plus a student maintenance award.
If the fee is set at £1,000, then the amount would be insufficient to keep the Government's promise to gap-year students. If the maximum grant is increased to keep the promise, then the level of the fee goes above that which the Government have announced.
It is our understanding—because we shall continue to take advice about this matter—that through the promise to the gap-year students the Government could have changed the structure of the Bill by breaking the link between the maximum grant and the prescribed fee. It is interesting to note that that link neatly achieves a number of objectives simultaneously, including the abolition of the maintenance grant, the imposition of the fee and the prevention of top-up fees. It is understandable and, I suspect, was why the Government were reluctant to adopt a more explicit structure that would have allowed extensive debate on each policy objective. We have not had an opportunity to discuss the policy objectives and that has caused great frustration.
Political policy proposals to abolish maintenance grants completely and to introduce tuition fees are a subject that should have been discussed in this and in the other place in terms of the policies they represent. Because of the misunderstanding, there should be an opportunity to have this part of the Bill recommitted. Parliament must have had in mind that any tuition fees payable by students to higher education institutions in 1962—
Baroness Blackstone: Can we discuss this issue when we deal with the next amendment, where it is somewhat more relevant than in connection with this amendment? I shall answer all the questions that the noble Baroness has put. It would be more appropriate, for the sake of orderly procedure, that we discuss these matters with the next amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I find it deeply regrettable that the noble Baroness has listened to three speeches so far, but has only just come in to say that she is not prepared to take these matters at this time. I do not intend to repeat what I have said. This is a matter for recommittal.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord. Lord Tope, was not discussing the issues now raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, discussed quite different issues. He briefly touched on this matter, but I assumed that he was going to speak at greater length on Amendment No. 139 in connection with the matters that the noble Baroness is now raising. I am trying to be helpful so that we deal with each amendment as it arises and in a way which makes it clear to everyone on all sides of the Chamber what is being discussed.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am in the Minister's hands here. I had been considering not moving Amendment No. 139. but since this matter has arisen and it clearly needs clarification, I will follow the Minister's preference as to whether we deal with it now or I move Amendment No. 139 to see whether we can get any further. What does the Minister prefer?
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I have made it clear. It would be more helpful and sensible if the noble Earl were to move Amendment No. 139 so that we can clarify the position then.
Lord Tope: I was going to give the Minister a few more minutes to contemplate the prospect of having my noble friend in her hands, to use his words. One of the reasons that we were contemplating not moving Amendment No. 139 corresponds with what I said at the beginning of the Committee stage today. I said that I intended to write to the Minister to set out the legal advice that we have had in order to give her the opportunity to consider it and seek further advice. We shall put down a Motion for recommittal. We shall consider what to do about that in the light of her response and those of the usual channels.
Of course we have no objection to pursuing the matter today, but I felt that we would make more progress when we have all had an opportunity to consider the legal advice that we are receiving, possibly even as I speak, but certainly the advice that we received over the weekend and earlier today. That is why my noble friend was considering not moving Amendment No. 139 today. It was not because we were going to drop the issue, but exactly the opposite.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may concentrate on the amendments which have been moved quite

53
unambiguously. They deal with the procedure for resolutions in this House and another place as regards regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we have had a number of lengthy exchanges on this issue earlier in the Committee stage. The other matters are either more appropriate to Amendment No. 139 or, if one likes, to a more informed discussion following the exchange of legal opinions.
The regulations arise as regards the GTC—that is to say, the references in these amendments to Clause 1(3) and Clause SO). During the debates last Tuesday the Committee indicated its concern about the regulations. We sought to reassure Members of the Committee by indicating that we agreed to consider the amendment about whether regulations on the GTC clauses should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We shall return to that.
At the same time, I recall seeking to reassure Members of the Committee that the regulations could set a framework within which the GTC would be empowered to make its own more detailed rules.
In particular, Members of your Lordships' House indicated their concern about Clause 1(3) which will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the composition of the GTC. Again, here, the regulations could be used to set out the framework for the composition of the GTC, but also allow the GTC scope to set out some of the detail of the future arrangements. This is the case with many other professional bodies.
We indicated clearly that one of the reasons for the timing is that before we finally propose precise regulations on issues such as the composition of the GTC, we want to engage in wide consultation to ensure that all interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on the arrangements.
The GTC will be a major public body. It is right, however, that regulations should set out the framework within which it will operate. The GTC will be an independent body, working with us to raise standards, and the power to make regulations does not give the Secretary of State powers to interfere in its day-to-day business, even if he wished to do so. I do not envisage that there will be any areas where we will not be able to achieve a broad consensus, so I expect the regulations will, following consultation, carry the support of the profession, the public, the council, and, indeed, this House. Nevertheless, we are considering the question of the affirmative resolution, as against the negative resolution, and shall return to that at a later stage.
On the point raised about Amendment No. 136 and the GTC making its own statutory instruments, we do not see a need for such a power. It would be odd if the GTC could make its own statutory instruments and we do not intend to provide for it to do so.
On the second batch of regulations which will be provided under the Bill—I refer to those relating to the induction of newly qualified teachers—we did not give a commitment. We do not think that it would be a good use of parliamentary time to make any regulations made under Clause 13(1) of the Bill subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The note we have placed in the
54
Library gives a clear indication of how we envisage the detailed arrangements for induction periods to be determined. I trust your Lordships find it useful.
Our intention is to consult next month on the detail of the induction arrangements as a basis for preparing regulations. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is the right way of ensuring that those regulations reflect the views of teacher trainers, employees and all with an interest in securing the highest standards of professional competence in our new teachers; and also that the new arrangements are manageable and unbureaucratic: and have strong support across the system.
In relation to the regulations on fees, we had a pretty full debate last Thursday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which sought directly to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I do not want to detain the Committee for any longer than is necessary, but I should like to repeat the commitments that we made then. First, we made the commitment to come forward with an amendment at Report stage which would make the regulations under Clauses 16 and 21 for the 1999–2000 academic year subject to affirmative resolution. Those regulations will bring about the effective change of system. We remain of the view that those are the key regulations, rather than those which deal with the transitional period and which will be made later this year.
Our second commitment, which I am happy to repeat, was that we would further consider the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the choice of either affirmative or negative resolution should be left open for further regulations. It was probably in that context that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, thought that he heard me use the word "cumbersome", which may indeed have been the case. We see some difficulties with that recommendation, but will come back with a clear view on it at a later stage.
As drafted, these amendments would, if passed, make all future regulations under the relevant clauses subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In relation to Clause 16, new regulations will be made every year. The changes from the previous year will in many cases be very minor indeed—for example, they might simply uprate the levels of grant and loan in line with inflation. I do not believe that affirmative resolution is a good use of your Lordships' time in those circumstances; nor, I should add, did the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee insist on it.
Given the undertakings that I made last Tuesday, last Thursday and today, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment in anticipation of the Government returning to this at a later stage.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. The Government are clearly right to be carrying out extensive consultation and we would all support that. However, whether it is right to present the Bill to us before that consultation has even started is more questionable. Nevertheless, this is the Bill that we have before us and that is the legislative process in which we are engaged. As I have said, we are going

55
through a legislative process, not a consultative process. We are where we are because of the timetabling and because the Bill is now before us. All the important substance of the Bill—the "flesh" as we keep calling it—will come in the regulations. That is why so many noble Lords believe it is important that your Lordships and the other place should have an opportunity to consider what is going to happen as a result of the legislation that we pass. I am pleased to hear that consideration is being given to the affirmative resolution.
I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord's undertaking to return to this at a later stage. I hope that that later stage will be the next stage because I am certain that we shall continue to pursue this matter vigorously on Report. We would all be saved a lot of time, trouble and upset if the Government could give such an indication at an early stage. Although many of us find it unsatisfactory to be in this position, such an early undertaking would at least reassure us that we shall have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the consultation has taken place and when we have the much-talked-about "flesh" on the "skeleton" that is now before us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 137:
Page 23, line 17, at end insert—
("sections 14 and 15,").
The noble Baroness said: It is not my intention to move this amendment today because during earlier Committee debates, it became clear that there are practical problems about the introduction of teacher training inspections. I tabled this amendment originally because I believe it is right that teacher training should be inspected and that the sooner we can get on with it, the better.
However, I became aware that two inspection systems have to live alongside each other. There are questions of overlap and duplication. Whatever the practical implications of implementing the measures in the Bill, it is important that they are implemented efficiently and effectively and in such a way as not to cause great tension between the two systems.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy has referred to the effect of these measures on the Scottish system. We need some assurances that the two systems will work effectively in practice in the interests of good teacher training. They must not cause tensions between the two systems. I believe that it is right that the Government
56
should implement as, and when, all these issues are resolved. That is why I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 28, line 38. at end insert—
(" . In section 58 of that Act (right to time off for occupational pension scheme trustees), at the end of subsection (3) add ", and
(c) references to training arc to training on the employer's premises or elsewhere.).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
6 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 29, leave out line 8.
The noble Earl said: I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but it appears to be for the convenience of noble Lords that I do so. A moment ago I heard my noble friend Lord Tope say that we are taking part in a legislative, not a consultative, process. I hope that my noble friend was not being optimistic. Parliament began its life as a consultative process and occasionally, late at night, I wonder whether it might end its life as one.
More seriously, I am concerned here with trying to narrow the areas of difference which engaged us last Thursday. Having taken legal advice in considerable quantity over the weekend, I believe it is common ground between us that there is no problem about the repeal of the 1962 Act. I am advised that the saving of the transitional provisions in Clause 17 is entirely sufficient and on that the legal advice received is unanimous.
It is also my understanding that tuition fees are being levied by universities under the authority of private law, not the authority of government. Therefore, we cannot speak about the introduction of a power to levy tuition fees. In spite of the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, it is not justified under any legislation unless one is considering private Acts relating to particular universities, which was probably not the intention in that memorandum. The two new changes introduced by this Bill—one that the local authority no longer reimburses the student for the fee and the other that under Clause 18(4) the Government place a cap on that fee—places the universities in exactly the situation of the privatised railways. One of the pieces of legal advice that I received suggested that that had been used as the draftsman's model for the Bill. It is not something that fills universities with joy.
Now that we have an agreement on what is actually happening, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the debate on the previous amendment illustrates that the Committee still has difficulty in understanding on what legal basis tuition fees are being put forward. It is my contention that we did not debate the right

57
amendments. I did not table the right amendments because I did not understand the legal basis of what was being done. I believed on the strength of the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that somewhere, once I could find it, there was legislation that gave a public law authority for the levy of tuition fees. If that is not so a whole series of questions arises that we did not address at Committee stage because we did not believe that they were relevant. If the noble Baroness says that that was in part our fault she is entitled to do so. Were she to say that it was wholly our fault that would be a quite different matter.
The question is whether the legal authority of the universities as private corporations for the levying and collection of tuition fees is sufficient: for example, whether universities have the right to withhold degrees from those who do not pay the tuition fees. These points require clarification which at Committee stage they did not get. We require clarification quite urgently as to whether the Government see it as being within the power of universities not to levy tuition fees. My understanding of the Government's position is that a university may refrain from levying a tuition fee if it is prepared to forgo the income. It is that which creates the possibility of cut-price, downward spiral market pressure—clearance sales and so forth. That would possibly represent a fulfilment of the ambition expressed by Mr. Robert Jackson as Minister for higher education when he referred to "breaking the cartel". If that is so, it indicates either that the Government are even more conservative than I had ever supposed or that the late Dick Crossman was right in saying that there were not more than half a dozen Ministers who controlled their departments.
There are a good many difficulties and questions to probe: for example, whether it would be allowable for universities to charge differential fees between subjects, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has from time to time suggested. I do not want to argue on any side of these questions, but we must probe the Government's intentions in these matters before we can decide exactly what to do with the Bill. Because the Committee stage procedure is so different from Report stage procedure and allows speaking twice and after the Minister it is particularly suitable for probing, for which it was designed. It is for that motive and in order to understand precisely where we find ourselves legally that we on these Benches ask for a recommitment of the Bill. We hope that it is to shed light rather than heat. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: I apologise both to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for jumping the gun, if I may put it colloquially. When the noble Baroness suggested that this should be discussed later, she did not mention the particular amendment to which she was referring. I thought that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, had relevance to the affirmative resolution procedure, which I wholeheartedly support. I hope that the noble Lord will return to it. Whatever the outcome of this debate, the case for these regulations coming before the House under the affirmative
58
resolution procedure, whether for 1998/99 or beyond, is even greater if there is no movement on the second debate as to whether or not there is another opportunity to discuss not simply the changes themselves but the policy changes. It is that frustration which has led to a prolonged Committee stage. Sadly, we are beginning to realise that it is a Committee stage that in large part has proceeded on a mistaken understanding of what the Government claim to be the legitimate basis for the policy changes.
For the purposes of the record, I hope that noble Lords will refer to the words that 1 used on the previous amendment. I should like to complete what I said when I was quite rightly interrupted by the noble Baroness. I believe that the reason why the Government referred to Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act was simply to use it as a mechanism rather than an opportunity to discuss the policy. The next question for the Government is whether Section 1(5) can be used to pay fees under Clause 18. Section 1 of the 1962 Act refers to awards. Local authorities have the duty to pay in respect of attendance on certain courses. Can such awards cover Clause 18 fees?
It appears that when passing the 1962 Act Parliament had in mind that any tuition fees payable by students to higher education institutions in 1962, or in 1980, could be the subject of awards. Nevertheless higher education institutions have the power to charge fees. Even if they use the power at present only for overseas students, Clause 18 fees are wholly new. That is a very important point. In requiring institutions to make their fees conform to the prescribed amount Clause 18(4) may be taken as forcing the abolition of the old fees to which the 1962 Act applies.
It is likely that a court would agree with the Government's position that Section 1(5) is apt to cover awards for any kind of charge to students in respect of their attendance at higher education courses. Section 1(1) and 1(5) would authorise the payment of grants to cover the fees of the exempted students. On that view, Clause 18(4) does not create a new form of fee but instead institutes a particularly severe form of price control amounting almost to nationalisation
There is such disquiet and frustration about the way in which the law operates in this respect and the fact that this House—it will be the same in another place—has not had an opportunity to discuss the policy of completely abolishing maintenance grants and introducing for the first time tuition fees, together with a very real misunderstanding of the premise on which we have discussed these matters at Committee stage, that I believe the argument for recommittal is justified. This is not unprecedented. The previous government conceded recommittal in a similar situation in relation to the jobseekers Bill when the House took the view that there had been a mistaken premise and there should be a recommittal to allow the subject to be fully discussed. I believe that the arguments in this instance are overwhelming.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Tope, for agreeing that he will wait until I have had the opportunity to write to him to set out all the arguments and the whole legal basis on which we are proceeding

59
before moving for a re-committal. That will be helpful because this is an extremely complex area and I would like the opportunity to set it out in writing. I will of course place my letter in the Library and also send a copy to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Meanwhile, it will be helpful if I begin by trying to respond to the concerns. I did not want to be critical when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke earlier: I thought it would be helpful if I said a few words about these issues, including the saving provisions which she also referred to.
I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has taken legal advice on the issue since we discussed Clause 16 last Thursday and we now agree on the legal basis of the Government's powers to introduce contributions to tuition fees under the 1962 Act. However, it would be helpful for the record if I set out the position, which I will then confirm in writing.
The Government will not be legislating to require students to pay tuition fees because they have no need to do so. It is individual universities and colleges which charge tuition fees for students. As the Committee is aware, they are quite free to do so. If they were not, there would be no need to include in the Bill Clause 18, which provides a reserve power to control top-up fees in certain circumstances.
What the 1962 Act does is require local education authorities to make mandatory awards to certain types of student to help them with the costs of attending their courses—that is the fees charged by their university and their maintenance costs. In practice the position in recent years has been that universities have charged fees at precisely the level of the fee element of the mandatory award so that students have not been expected to contribute personally. Legally speaking, the university has still been charging a fee to the student but that fee has been met by the local authority through the mechanism of the mandatory award.
What we are proposing to do in 1998 is provide for maximum support of £1,000 towards fees and then means test that support so that the full £1,000 is available only to students from lower income families. It will remain for universities and colleges to set their own fee levels, though they will need to do so in the knowledge that no student will receive more than £1,000 in financial support for fees from public funds. It is precisely because the Government do not set university fees that we are seeking reserve powers in Clause 18 to prevent universities from charging more than the maximum level of support available to students if necessary. If the Government set university fee levels there would be no need for Clause 18.
In legal terms, what our proposals mean is that the fee element of the mandatory award will be means tested, just as the maintenance grant is now. The power to do this is set out in Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act, which provides that regulations shall,
"prescribe the circumstances in which [the award] is to be payable, and the amount of the payment or the scales or other provisions by reference to which that amount is to he determined".
That is the provision under which maintenance grants have been means tested since 1962. There is no reason why the means test cannot also apply to the fee element of
60
the award. This is precisely what was done between September 1962, when mandatory awards were introduced, and August 1977. The powers in Clause 16 replace those in the 1962 Act and allow us to make regulations to the same effect.
It is regrettable if noble Lords feel that they have been misled by what is said in paragraph 22(f) of the department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. This is a misunderstanding about the legal basis for the charging of fees to students rather than any failing in the memorandum.
This power to make regulations is the power under which the mandatory award regulations are made. Students have received an indemnity for university fees through awards made through these regulations. They will not do so in the future and will be liable to pay up to £1,000 a year in respect of fees. This change in the law will be achieved by amending the mandatory awards regulations so that they provide for only a partial reimbursement of fees. This is the existing legislation referred to at paragraph 22(f) of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report.
I hope that the Committee will, now that I have explained the legal background, accept that paragraph 22(f) is not misleading and accurately reflects the true position. As I said, I shall follow this up with a letter which I hope will further clarify the matter. Members of the Committee will also have the opportunity to read what I have said in Hansard.
Turning to the savings issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is concerned about, it will be helpful if I again try to explain the matter. There seems to be continuing misunderstanding over the repeal of the 1962 Act, the current student loans legislation and the introduction of the savings provisions. Our policy is quite clear: from 1998–99 we will be introducing a new system of student support for new entrants to higher education. Existing students, and exceptionally new students such as those who fall within the gap in the scheme announced last August, will continue to receive mandatory awards and student loans for the duration of their course.
The powers to make those awards and loans are contained in the 1962 Act and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 respectively. This is not just a matter of a gap: it is all existing students. Next year there will be second year students, third year students and some fourth year students. It is important that those existing students should be adequately looked after.
However, those existing students will not be students for ever. Once the last of them has left the system, the powers in the 1962 and the 1990 Acts will no longer be needed. The Bill therefore requires for them to be repealed in full. If it did not, we would have to come back to the House in due course to seek powers to repeal legislation which no longer served any purpose. That would not be a sensible way to use your Lordships' time.
In the meantime the 1962 and 1990 Acts need to continue to have effect in relation to existing students. It is essential that they do not have effect in relation to new students. For those students, regulations will be made under the new powers in Clause 16 of the current Bill. If the 1962 and 1990 Acts remained in force in relation to

61
new students, we would have a legislative muddle. For example, local authorities would be obliged to continue making awards under the 1962 Act to new students even though alternative arrangements have been put in place for them. Our intention is to repeal the 1962 and 1990 Acts so they no longer have prospective effects in relation to new students. At the same time, however, we will be putting in place saving provisions under Clause 17 of the current Bill which will provide for the relevant parts of those Acts to continue to have effect in relation to existing students.
I hope that that helps to clarify the matters that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been concerned about. I also hope that what I have said on the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, helps. It would be helpful to everybody if we now waited until I am able to write to the noble Lords and follow this up in further detail so that everybody should have the chance to study what I have said. On that basis, there would not be a good case for recommitting the Bill at this stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In relation to the first part of the Minister's reply to the noble Earl, I wonder whether everything she said about English law applies in Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Earl would like her to include in her letter to him the legal base in Scotland. It cannot be the same, because local authorities are not involved with mandatory awards. I imagine that there is a variation. Could I, at least, have a copy of that letter?
Earl Russell: I second what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about Scotland. It would be helpful to us also.
Lord Peston: I speak for those of us who are trying to understand anything that has been said, let alone everything. I had understood that universities could charge fees. I am amazed that anyone should think that they cannot. The reason they did not charge them above the levels mentioned by my noble friend is that any government would have immediately introduced legislation if they had tried to do other than what they wanted.
I found what the noble Earl said confusing. He seemed to be saying that a number of things that universities do are not legal; for example, universities do not reveal degree results to students from overseas who have not paid their fees. He seemed to imply that they had no legal foundation for doing that, which rather frightens me. My main reason for rising is different. I look forward to receiving my noble friend's information. Are we to be given all the legal information that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, have, because some of us will probably be asked what we think, and I should, as usual, rather say what I think on the basis of information than on no information. If we could generally all be fully informed, it would be of assistance.
Earl Russell: Of course I know what is the present legal situation. I wanted to know whether the Government propose to change it under any of their many regulation-making powers.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: When the Minister writes to the noble Earl, will she answer another of our
62
questions? I understand, from what she clearly said, that the Government recognise that the universities have the right to charge fees, but the Secretary of State's powers, as they stand at the moment, are to require local authorities to re-imburse the fees that universities charge. There are limits on how much they can be reimbursed. Where in the Bill, as it now stands, does the Secretary of State have powers to sanction universities which charge more than the prescribed amount? That is the question that was not answered in the noble Baroness's reply and which I still find difficult. If universities have the power to charge fees and local authorities are to be removed from the picture, where in the Bill, or anywhere else, is the basis for the Secretary of State's powers to impose sanctions on universities if they charge more than the prescribed amount?
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies and before the noble Earl comes back on the amendment, there are two issues here. They are equally important. One is a technical one. It relates to the technical legitimacy of what the Government want to do and from where they are taking their powers. I was interested in part of the Minister's explanation. I agree with her that it would be helpful if not only did she read what we have said but that we read more carefully what she has put on the record. The other point is the moral one. It is equally important.
As recently as 14th April last year the Prime Minister said:
"We have no plans to charge students tuition fees".
Every student in the land had a real understanding that in the middle of an election that is what the Government meant: what Mr. Blair said, Mr. Blair meant. Therefore it came as something of a shock to every student that such a proposal was brought before Parliament but was not included in the Bill—that links in with the technical argument—because there is already in the system power to charge fees. We understand that the power is with the higher education institutions and not with the Government. We understand that it is not in Clauses 16 or 17 but is in Clause 18, where the sting is in the tail. As I have already argued, that represents a serious move by the Government.
It is difficult for us properly to understand the technical arguments and to ensure that there is a legal base not just for the 1998–99 old system students and their transitional arrangements. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who said that we do not need to worry about this year's students because, in a sense, it is just a matter of uprating. It is important that the Committee is secure in the knowledge that all students who are still in the old system, and will be for some time, are properly catered for. We shall insist that those regulations come before this place under the affirmative procedure. The transitional arrangements for the new system should begin their life under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thereafter it will be for the Government to make up their own mind as to whether any changes brought before this place in the form of regulations are matters of substance or just minor matters that require the negative procedure only. It is an important point.

63
I shall set aside the technical argument because we all need to go away to do some reading and to take more advice. There is a great deal of disquiet in the legal community about what the Government are doing. It is not enough to say that it has always been possible to charge fees; everyone knows that; the power has always been within the system. There was an understanding by students in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that, if any Conservative, Liberal or Labour government had taken the move to break with tradition and charge home students tuition fees, there would at least be a policy debate in both Chambers.
There has not been a policy debate. There is no opportunity under the Bill because there is no measure in the Bill which allows us to discuss a policy issue. It is being dismissed constantly as a technical issue. I argue that it is a moral issue. I hope, for the technical reasons and the moral arguments, that we shall be given an opportunity to discuss the matter on recommittal.
I repeat the point made powerfully by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is important to have the freedom in Committee to have a discursive debate. It is important to do so at the beginning of a Bill. The whole point of having a Committee stage, followed by a more restrictive Report stage, followed by an even more restrictive Third Reading, is so that as we go through the Bill we are secure in the knowledge that we have had the type of discursive debate that we need to have at the beginning of a Bill. We have not had a discursive debate on this issue, and so the argument for recommittal is a powerful one.
Timing is of the essence here. We are due to come back for Report stage on 17th February. If there is to be any recommittal, and we are allowed a second opportunity to discuss these matters, that has to be done well before 17th February so as to allow a proper discussion on Report of all the issues contained in the Bill. So any letters, any advice and any reconsideration of the matter need to take place literally within the next week.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to want one more piece of information. I shall not ask the Minister to make a second speech. If she has the information, I will happily give way to her. If not, I look forward to receiving it when she has it. I understand that there is a cap over the fee. I should like to be clear as to whether there is also a floor. I shall give way if that information is available, because it is important to me.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: There is no floor in the legal sense, but any university which fails to collect the fees will be jeopardising the quality of the higher education which it is able to provide.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. It was my understanding and it clears up the position considerably. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the importance of a general debate on the principles of the main proposals in the Bill. Looking back to the Education (Student Loans) Bill 1990, it is my experience that a framework Bill always leads to an
64
exceptionally prolonged Committee stage. That is because it takes so much work to tease out the meaning of the Bill and to discover how one can table amendments to meet points. But at least we are beginning to approach the issue on the basis of a factual framework. I am grateful to the Minister for her exposition, which in some respects was very close indeed to my legal advice. In fact, the coincidence was remarkable; there must be a high level of lawyers on both sides.
I am grateful for the Minister's exposition of paragraph 22(f). That paragraph is a Whitehall classic. There is nothing in it which is in any way incorrect, yet it does not have a high degree of transparency. That is exactly how the trick is worked. It does not convey the correct impression to me. While I am prepared to take part of the responsibility for that, I am not prepared to take the whole of it. Therefore, if we can agree on an amicable basis to share the responsibility, we shall proceed a great deal faster. If we cannot, a certain amount of time might be taken up. In the meantime, and in hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and give way to the next business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Bank of England Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Welfare of Pigs (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
6.33 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Chris Mullin, who moved an almost identical Bill under the Ten Minute Rule in another place, where it is still before Parliament. That is why this is a No. 2 Bill. I also pay tribute to those who joined him in ordering the Bill to be "brought in", Sir Richard Body, Mr. Mike Hancock and Mr. Nigel Jones.
My motives for introducing the Bill are the same as those for introducing the Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill in the previous Session. In neither case is there, or was there, a likelihood of the Bill being passed into law in the near future. However, it is doing a service to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill through all its stages so that there is on record a Bill that has been properly argued through, which will be available during the Session when there is some hope of introducing it into another place with some hope of success.
This is a good month for pigs. We have all been following the adventures of the gallant Tamworth Two and if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be an important blow for the welfare of these particularly attractive farm animals. That was why I was saddened last Thursday, when I was seeking out the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to congratulate him on his

65
speech in the debate on agriculture the day before, with every part of which I agreed, to discover that he had put down the Dilatory Motion which is before your Lordships today and which I would urge him not to take to a vote.
I do not want to embark on a lengthy debate as to when it is within the traditions of your Lordships' House to strangle a Private Member's Bill at birth, but I would submit that there are really only three reasons which would make it justifiable. The first of those reasons would be that it was a frivolous Bill which it was not worth your Lordships' while considering. I think the list of distinguished speakers which this debate has attracted proves that it does not fall into that category. I particularly welcome the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, one-time chaplain and vice-principal at my theological college. We never thought we would end up in the House of Lords debating pigs.
The second reason would be that the objective of the Bill was unacceptable. This, too, does not apply since I doubt whether there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who is opposed to "the health and welfare of pigs", which is the objective spelt out in the Long Title.
The third reason would be that the Bill was unamendable and this, too, does not apply since I am most anxious that it should be amended as a result of the expertise which your Lordships will bring to it. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to consider whether he should not allow this Bill to reach at least Third Reading before deciding that it should be killed off and, if he does not agree, I would ask noble Lords on all sides of the House to save it, like the Tamworth Two, from a premature death.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the sources and justification of this Bill. Before Mr. Chris Mullin introduced it, it was the product of Compassion in World Farming, a body which, while taking immensely seriously the welfare of farm animals, as should we all, is highly respectable and well-thought of, is ably and responsibly led by Mr. Peter Stevenson and in no way belongs to that extreme range of animal activist bodies which may well be heartily distrusted by many of your Lordships.
Although he is in no way responsible for the genesis of this Bill, I am relying, and will continue to rely heavily, on the scientific expertise of Professor Broom, the Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University and Head of the Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group in the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at that University. Professor Broom was also Chairman of the Scientific Veterinary Committee (animal welfare section) which at the request of the European Commission established an expert working group (of which he was a member) to produce a report on the welfare of intensively kept pigs (Doc XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1097 adopted 30/09/97).
An important step has been taken recently in Europe. At the Amsterdam IGC animals were given a new status in EU law as sentient beings as opposed to merely agricultural products. All credit to Mr. Elliot Morley, the Minister responsible for animal welfare within the Ministry of Agriculture, for his work on that and for his speeches on this topic which lead me to hope that the Government will give this Bill a fair wind.
66
A major reform for breeding sows will be introduced on 1st January 1999—the abolition of sow stall and tethers. I am delighted by that development and the industry is to be congratulated on accepting this reform, which it is to be hoped will lead to a further reform in the outlawing of the cruelty of the farrowing crate.
But this Bill focuses on the 13 million young pigs slaughtered each year at the age of four to six months for bacon, pork and ham. And let me make it clear that I am not a vegetarian and I enjoy almost all pig products, buying as I do, delicious bacon every month from Emmett's Stores in Peasenhall in Suffolk where your Lordships can find a small village general stores surmounted by a large sign designating it "By Appointment supplier of hams to Her Majesty the Queen Mother", to whom I should add that we all. I know, wish a speedy recovery from her operation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my objective is not to be a Scarlet Pimpernel rescuing cochons from the guillotine, since all animals, like your Lordships, must die sooner or later, but to ensure that while they live they enjoy a life free from pain and cruelty: for pigs are intelligent and lively active creatures while young.
Today the vast majority of pigs are forced to spend the whole of their lives in barren overcrowded sheds without fresh air or daylight, mostly without straw or other bedding.
At present the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 sanction severe overcrowding. Clause 1 of my Bill insists that they be given ample space and bedding. Pigs need space for lying, for exercise, for feeding and for dunging. They also need bedding for foot-health and for exercise of natural rooting, foraging and exploring behaviour. The schedule lays down the space required. It is quite possible that this should be amended, but Professor Broom comments that,
"the principle that pigs have space to lie in lateral recumbency plus a little extra space to walk around",
is a good one.
In natural conditions pigs are not weaned until they are at least 13 weeks old. On most of today's farms piglets are weaned after three and a half weeks. Sows reach their peak lactation three to four weeks after giving birth, the time when today the piglets are weaned. The object of early weaning is of course to enable sows to become pregnant again as soon as possible. Early weaning causes stress and poor welfare among piglets and leads to tail biting in lieu of a teat to suckle. Clause 2 of my Bill makes the minimum age for weaning, save in exceptional causes, a modest six weeks. The British pig association, whose approach can be judged by its dismissal of Mr. Mullin's speech in another place, based as it was and as I hope mine will be, on the best scientific advice available as
"uninformed. biased, totally inaccurate and intemperate",
suggests that weaning at six weeks will have an adverse effect on the pigs' welfare.
If modern sows cannot properly look after their piglets after the age of three to four weeks, that should be a reason to look very hard at breeding policies. I would suggest that

67
that highly responsible body, the Soil Association, is right to recommend a weaning age of eight weeks. In any case, four weeks should be the absolute minimum age, with no escape clause to allow it a week earlier. Here is another point where we could usefully discuss figures at Committee stage.
Clause 3 deals with tail docking. I do not believe that we should indulge in mutilation of animals except for their own welfare. In addition to this general principle, there is evidence that tail docking causes lasting pain and distress. Most of us think of tail docking as a quick snip and that is it, it is all over. However, Professor Broom comments that,
"neuromas in amputated limbs cause phantom limb pain and it is likely that a pig with neuroma in its docked tail region",
and he asserts that they do have that,
"w ill have frequent or continuous pain all its life".
That totally contradicts the British pig association claim that,
"pigs feel no more than transitory discomfort".
It is said that the reason for tail docking is to stop tail biting by other pigs. But the tail biting is caused by early weaning, as we have seen, and by intelligent animals being kept in intensely boring surroundings. Many of your Lordships will be aware of similar behaviour in horses such as crib-biting and wind-sucking and I venture to suggest that if your Lordships were kept in the same kind of conditions as pigs you might go in for tail biting too. The cure for tail biting is not tail docking; it is proper living conditions. And it should be pointed out that tail docking is carried out in defiance of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 by the totally improper use of an escape clause.
Clauses 4 and 5 of my Bill lay down penalties and establish definitions. Professor Broom advises me that the latter may need amendments with which I will not bother your Lordships at the moment. Clause 6 gives the Bill a Short Title and allows a generous two years before it comes into force, besides extending the Bill to Northern Ireland where there is a healthy pig industry.
The reasons given for the inhumane conditions in which pigs are kept are often that they give us cheap food. A new report by Compassion in World Farming Trust, using Meat & Livestock Commission data, reveals that free-range pork and bacon are just as cheap to produce as meat coming from factory-farmed pigs. The industry has run out of excuses. I urge your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
6.46 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sorry that I have to move this somewhat erudite Motion instead of just saying no to the noble Lord, which I have done in the past. But I have been told that I must approach the matter in this way.
I regret that because I understand, appreciate and support the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and his supporters have promoted this Bill. As your
68
Lordships have heard, it is their opinion that this Bill will improve the conditions in which pigs are kept. Your Lordships, any farmer and I myself must support such an intention for, apart from the fact that treating animals cruelly or unsympathetically always results in a loss of profit, such action is totally against a farmer's ethos. That ethos, which can be called the rural philosophy, is very much under pressure from those not privileged—and I mean that—to live and experience it.
We are all deeply concerned by that lack of understanding. Unfortunately, the noble Lord's Bill falls into that trap, for far from protecting the welfare and conditions of pigs, it does exactly the opposite for the following reasons. First, increased space will lead to cold pigs. As every noble Lord will know, pigs like heat and like to snuggle together. I could be frivolous but I shall not. Cold pigs catch pneumonia, which leads to an increased use of antibiotics.
Today's sows and piglets are bred to be weaned at four weeks old. Extending that would put a strain on a sow's metabolism resulting in either death or again an increased use of drugs.
I accept that when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I were a little younger, eight weeks was the norm. I fear that neither I nor the noble Lord, nor even the right reverend Prelate, can prevent time moving on, although sometimes perhaps we should wish to.
The forbidding of crates would cause horrific losses by the sow rolling on her piglets. That certainly used to be the case, as I know to my cost, when they were kept "naturally", if I may use that word. Failure to tail-dock at an early age more often than not leads to cannibalism, resulting in great pain and again the use of antibiotics to clean up the inevitable infection.
Your Lordships will have listened to news broadcasts yesterday when the pig industry made a plea for protection against imported pig meat which is being produced under cruel and, indeed, unhygienic conditions. Foreign producers already have the advantage of being able to use meat and bonemeal, whereas British meat producers have to use the more expensive fishmeal, which, incidentally, encourages further depletion of the world's fish stocks. The Bill would further encourage those cruel and unhygienic imports.
Some noble Lords may say—indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was saying this—that it is against the custom of your Lordships' House to stop a Private Member's Bill on Second Reading. That just is not true. I admit, perhaps with guilt, perhaps not, to having done just that in the past. However, of much more importance is the fact that this Bill is causing very considerable concern not just to the pig industry but also to farmers generally. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, they will think that your Lordships approve of the Bill and that it will eventually pass into law.
Parliamentary procedure is not a matter that features very strongly in Watson and More's Science of British Agriculture, neither do farmers like to see time and money wasted, even if it is only your Lordships' time. However, as a Member of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, perhaps I should like to see the Government's time wasted.

69
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I happen, probably wrongly, to believe in compassion towards human beings; in this case the farmers. Noble Lords will have listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, last Wednesday and will be aware that—I say this with sadness—we have one of the highest suicide rates in the country. I shall leave dealing with Professor Broom until I sum up and move the amendment later on. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to withdraw his Bill. If he does not do so, whether he likes it or not, it will be seen as yet another attack on farmers and others who live and work in the countryside.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I cannot claim to be an expert on pigs; nor do I think it right for those who are not experts to lecture those who are on the right way or the wrong way to rear pigs. I am all too conscious of how easy it is for those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, but without first hand knowledge, to get it wrong. So I speak with some temerity on the Bill. My only qualification for doing so is that I like pigs. As a child, I grew up with them on a smallholding, not the mass production variety but three sows who slept in deep beds of straw of their own construction, foraged in the orchard and reared their piglets without sow crates or tail-docking or, indeed, antibiotics. They were also Socialist pigs because they came originally from a herd owned by Nye Bevan.
Looking back, I realise that it cannot have been a very commercial enterprise because they were rather more pets. But in childhood I clearly remember lying in the straw with an arm around a large recumbent sow while she listened with every appearance of intelligence and sympathy as I told her my childhood problems, to which she responded with reassuring grunts. I also like to eat pigs. I see no contradiction in that. If the more militant vegetarians had their way, pigs would all but cease to exist. For both those reasons pigs deserve the best life and the best death that we can give them.
In the years since then I have twice come face to face with the unpleasant reality of commercial pig production. Some years back, on a very hot day at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh, I wandered, looking I believe for somewhere cool, into a large building which was then part of a showcase pig unit on the edge of the site. Inside, row upon row of sows stood on concrete floors chained to iron bars. Those intelligent creatures had a simple choice: to stand up or lie down, nothing else. However, what I remember most about that hot afternoon in that unit was the total absence of pig communication, which was a constant feature of our pigs. Those pigs stood in total silence. That unit has gone, and, as we have just been told, sow stalls will also go in January 1999—and a good thing too! However, I have no doubt that other and different problems will replace them because pigs, as those of us who have had anything to do with them will know, do like to fight on occasions.
70
My second encounter was at a local abattoir, which is now closed like so many others. This was some years ago. I had gone to collect some lambs which I had sent in some days before. I stress that that was before the 1995 regulations came into force. They were killing pigs. Whether the electric current was inadequate, the slaughtermen inefficient or the interval of time between stunning and sticking too long. I do not know. But the results were inadequate stunning and the sights and sounds of suffering were such that I hope I never experience them again. A farmer standing next to me said. as we both watched, "No pig of mine will ever come here".
I very much hope that pig slaughter has vastly improved since those days, in particular since the appalling results of a survey that was carried out by the Bristol University scientists on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1993 became known. But further improvements are still needed and are possible. This Bill does not deal with slaughter. If your Lordships do give it a Second Reading today, I give notice that I shall table amendments on those aspects in Committee.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising these issues. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, said. What troubles me is that this issue is raised by way of a Bill which will, inevitably, be strongly opposed. I would much rather have seen such issues raised in your Lordships' House by way of a short debate.
In reality, no animal welfare legislation can reach the statute book and be effective without the co-operation of those who are directly concerned with the animals. It must be right that we should listen carefully to those who know what they are talking about—the pig farmers themselves. But they, too, must listen because animal husbandry is not static: it must be able to change and improve to take account of our better understanding of animals and their needs. There is no place for complacency and we must always aim to make improvements.
Tail biting is, I suspect, a symptom of stress. Routine tail-docking has been prohibited since 1994, yet 70 per cent. of piglets are still tail-docked. That should not be necessary. The fact that so many farmers consider that to be necessary shows just how far we have to go to tackle the underlying problems of stress. The measures proposed in the Bill, whether or not this particular Bill goes forward, point at least to some of the ways forward in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, farmers at present are particularly defensive and that is not surprising. Jobs and incomes, communities, and a way of life, seem to many to be under threat from an unsympathetic urban and suburban majority as never before.
Sadly, few people today have any direct contact whatsoever with farm animals, yet many have strong views about how they should be treated and feel qualified to dictate to those who have their day-to-day care and management. I believe that public concern for animals is open to both exploitation and misdirection. It is an irony that organisations which spend their money on practical animal welfare and try to alleviate suffering, such as the Humane Slaughter Association, the Blue Cross and the

71
International League for the Protection of Horses, often struggle for funds to carry out their excellent work, while other organisations which spend vast sums on sensational advertising, public relations and political lobbying—and make a great deal of noise—seem to have money to spare. But those who shout the loudest and most acrimoniously are not necessarily the best friends of the animals themselves; sometimes quite the reverse is true.
Those who rear animals for food would be wise to take note of public concern about the methods which some of them employ, and make changes themselves where they are merited. Whatever the outcome of this Bill—I am bound to say that if this amendment is put to the vote, I shall abstain—pigs will still be looked after by pig farmers. Without their active co-operation this legislation could not work. Animal welfare, it seems to me, is not best served by confrontation but by education, informed debate and consensus. Those who introduced this Bill and support it and those who oppose it might do well to remember that.
7.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I like pigs. They are immensely intelligent and attractive animals and I have serious concern for their health and welfare. I also have a high regard for the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I, too, thank him for introducing this subject to the House. I agreed with everything he said in the debate last week—I was sorry that I was not able to be in the House—and I have read his book with pleasure and edification.
I thoroughly agree with the importance of trying to maintain family farms. I also agree with the principle of modulation of subsidies. I believe that those issues are related—particularly the family farm issue—to the subject before us now. This is not a frivolous Bill but I fear that it is a misguided Bill, proposing the wrong measures at the wrong time. Like other speakers, I am conscious of the severe pressures bearing down on farmers at present. This year farm incomes of all kinds are substantially down. I think that that is the first time that has ever been the case. Measures such as these proposals which would add in any way to the cost of farming will be strongly resisted—and I believe rightly resisted—unless it can be shown that they are absolutely essential beyond any shadow of doubt and of proven importance. I question whether that is the case in the proposals before us now.
I come from the most rural diocese in the Church of England where a significant number of the population are still engaged in farming and an even larger number depend on it for their livelihood. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, that these proposals would not improve the lot of pigs and in some important respects might well make their conditions worse. Like the noble Baroness I have happy childhood memories of pigs. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had similar memories at the back of his mind in drawing up the terms of this Bill. I refer to small groups of pigs each in a traditional brick built sty with plenty of shelter at the back, masses of straw and a trough in front. It was picturesque and the pigs were happy. I think they were Conservative
72
pigs as my uncle was a staunch Tory! However, that system was enormously extravagant in terms of the capital cost of constructing such piggeries and it was labour intensive. Such methods are simply not realistic in terms of contemporary farming where people have to make a living in a highly competitive environment.
However, I have also seen conspicuously healthy and happy pigs in a different environment. It was one of the unexpected pleasures of a link which I was able to establish, when I worked in the diocese of Salisbury, with the Roman Catholic diocese of Evreux in Normandy. On several occasions I visited a rural farm college run by a brotherhood of lay and ordained brothers who combined their missionary and pastoral work in the parishes with introducing young men and women to the rudiments of farming and particularly animal husbandry. One of the priest brothers was an international expert on pigs. That pig unit was intensive and alarmingly so to our sensitive consciences as we went round it. There were sows in stalls and crates and all the pigs were fairly closely confined; a system much disliked by animal welfare activists. But the evidence was unmistakeable of clean, healthy and contented pigs. There was communication and there was no distress. There were good litters of piglets and little perinatal mortality. There was a constant temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit which compared extremely favourably with the cold and austere conditions in which the members of the human community lived, and which we, their guests, had to share.
"Bonjour mesdames, ne vous dérangez pas", said our priest pig expert every morning as he went into the unit. It was intensive farming but it was done with great skill and real affection. I believe that it represented excellent husbandry. However. I do not advocate the intensive character of the unit, although I advocate that kind of care and affection that was obviously shown to the animals. I welcome the forthcoming abolition of stalls and tethers in the United Kingdom, but that will not happen in the rest of the European Union at the moment. I welcome the new regulations about stocking densities which came into force at the beginning of this year which will, I believe, prevent serious overcrowding and allow enough space for comfort.
I turn briefly to the specific provisions of the Bill which I believe are mistaken. The reference to bedding in Clause 1(2) sounds desirable but it can in practice threaten the health of pigs. There is further risk of pneumonia which can be contracted from the bedding itself. I believe there is evidence that slatted flooring is healthier and cleaner and is widely used in the most modern units. I turn to the matter of weaning to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave a good deal of attention. Every farmer wants healthy sows and healthy piglets. The present normal practice of weaning at about three and a half weeks allows the piglets to achieve good body weight and full viability. The leanness of modern sows is quite properly required by a public conscious of the dangers of consuming large quantities of animal fat. The whole of our pig herds are infinitely leaner than they used to be. Those pigs of my childhood were so fat when they went to market that no one would buy them today. However, that leanness means that the sows cannot continue to lactate for the full six weeks required by this proposal.

73
I am grateful for the concession made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his opening speech suggesting that perhaps there is room for manoeuvre here and for further amendment and that perhaps four weeks would be an appropriate minimum period.
I turn to tail docking. It is not desirable in itself but it is much better than tail biting. It seems to be an effective way of preventing outbreaks of tail biting which are unpredictable, unpleasant, and, as has already been said, cause great distress. Tail biting occurs also among open air, free range pigs as well as among those housed or raised more intensively. It is a phenomenon which does not seem to be properly understood. Tail docking is a quick and effective process carried out on young piglets. Although it is briefly painful, the animals continue to suckle while it is being done and I believe there is little evidence of long-term distress. My press officer is a former farmer who has carried out the operation and he has assured me that he has described it to me accurately and faithfully.
For all those reasons, and because the European Union Scientific Committee has made a list of pig farming recommendations which will be translated later this year into Commission proposals so that legislation on the subject is likely, I believe that the Bill is untimely as well as mistaken in its proposals. If there is to be legislation on pig welfare. I hope very much that it will address other matters, not just slaughter—on which subject the noble Baroness spoke—but also concerns about open air pig farming. One cannot help but feel that such farming looks right: that those are happy pigs rootling about in the field. But the shelter provided is quite inadequate. In very cold weather, in periods of persistent rain, and, even more importantly, in times of great heat the pigs suffer seriously. Pigs are by nature woodland animals. They need shelter. They burn easily in the sun. Those are areas of real concern in terms of the health and welfare of pigs, and. sadly, the Bill does not address them.
I believe that it would be right to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, which would enable these issues to be dealt with more comprehensively at a later date when we shall know more about proposed European legislation. I do not believe that we shall be doing pigs a disservice if we do not give the Bill a Second Reading. We shall certainly be doing pig farmers a disservice if we do; and their cause is very close to my heart, as is the cause of the pigs themselves.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Like the noble Baroness, I cannot claim to be an expert on pigs. But I do not come into the category which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, rightly illustrated of the vast majority of people who do not understand farming, food production and the handling of animals on farms. In my time I have managed two farms totalling 733 acres on which were fattened every year 350 head of beef cattle. There was a breeding flock of 380 ewes. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, am not a vegetarian. I eat meat, with one exception to which I shall come.
74
I so often had a conscience, in particular about lambs in the months of June and July going to slaughter straight from their mothers. However, I always had the satisfaction and comfort of knowing that when the animals were on the farm they were well and truly looked after. Beef cattle with meadows in the summer and straw yards in the winter were happy creatures. I believe that that still appertains in the vast majority of farming today. It does not apply to what is usually now called intensive farming.
Fifteen years ago in another place, as chairman of the Agriculture and Food Select Committee, I presided over a lengthy inquiry into intensive methods of food production. It was a period of my parliamentary experience which I shall never forget; it greatly distressed me. At that time, as a committee, we became extremely concerned when examining production methods used in the spheres of veal calves, poultry, in particular hens, and pigs. At the end of our inquiry, in a report which I signed. we made a number of strong recommendations all of which had the aim of introducing more humane systems into so-called factory farming. I very much regret that after all these years—it is 16 years since I signed that report—few of our recommendations have been implemented, although veal crates, which were dreadful, are now, thankfully, illegal in the United Kingdom. I wish that they were illegal in the area of the Community. I understand that they are being phased out, but how long that will take is anyone's guess.
As has already been mentioned, at long last sow stalls and tethers, which horrified us 15 years ago, will become illegal in the UK. That welcome piece of legislation, which will come into force in a year's time, is largely due to the pressure campaign by Compassion in World Farming which should be much commended. Sadly, and cruelly, hens are still kept in battery cages.
The Bill has highly desirable aims. While several points can be made against the Bill—there is a case against its timing and its being unilateral and not European—much can be said for it. Its aims are to make production of young pigs more humane. We are told that 13 million are reared for slaughter at present. The Bill gives those 13 million pigs increased space and the provision of bedding, and will end cruel early weaning. It is easy to talk of scientific modern farming. The right reverend Prelate stated that he has seen an intensive pig unit which he thought humane. With my committee, I saw many which were not humane; and we travelled a great deal on our inquiry. I saw many young pigs housed in darkness on cold concrete floors in inadequate buildings. I did not much like what I saw. So all the objectives of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are excellent, however impractical its implementation may be.
I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the Bill. Having presided over that inquiry all those years ago, I welcome anything and everything which seeks to ease the still prevalent cruelty involved in intensive farming. I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill; and I support it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Runcie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the expectations he raised about my speech without knowing its content. It reminds me of the days when I was bishop of a diocese and was known to keep a herd of pedigree Berkshire pigs. When a vicar was informed that I was going to visit his parish, he rang my chaplain and asked whether I was coming as shepherd or swineherd.
As someone who has kept a pedigree herd of black Berkshire pigs for 25 years, I may be regarded as unacceptably amateur for this debate because to keep a small number of free-range pigs under privileged conditions with an eye on a rare breed trophy rather than a competitive market is bound to create a romantic view. However, that experience has convinced me that my pigs were not always without distress, and that the pigs in a well-ordered intensive unit beside which I now live are not the constant object of human cruelty.
My own pigs are now looked after by mentally handicapped young people and an amazingly fruitful partnership is struck up for the good health of them both. So, prompted by real affection and care about the welfare of pigs, I am moved to say a few words about the Bill.
The good intentions of the noble Lord are unquestionable. This is the third in a series of Bills that are avowedly aimed at the worst excesses of factory farming. In each case the organisation, Compassion in World Farming, has provided much evidence. We owe them a debt. Now at the end of September a report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Union has produced a substantial document on the welfare of intensively kept pigs. It was referred to by the noble Lord as Professor Broom's work; he is the chairman of the committee.
However, my anxiety at the thought of legislation springs from several reasons. Legislation calls for agreed facts and should not be hasty. There is still a wide range of differing views on what constitutes good welfare and how to measure it in this matter. Codes and conventions can be more appropriate than laws when ideas on what is best for animals change in the light of research. We used to think that mice should be kept in large cages. If you offer a mouse the choice between a large cage and a small one, it chooses the small one. We used to think that the castration of calves by surgical methods was less painful than by a method that crushes the spermatic cord. Recent research shows that calves are more distressed by the surgical method. In both cases, if legislation had been enacted we should have found ourselves unable to reduce distress in animals.
Secondly, there is the question as to how far major legislation on animal welfare should now be at the European level. The Animal Welfare and Human Animal Interaction Group of the EU has produced a great deal of sophisticated evidence. But, if we ban undesirable procedures only in Britain, the welfare of animals in Europe may be worse. An obvious example is the ban in the UK on keeping veal calves in crates and feeding diets short of fibre and iron. The result was that calves were exported to other European countries for the production of white veal. So they suffered that method of husbandry and a long journey beforehand.
76
Legislation needs to be based on sound science. It must be easy to interpret and enforce. While offering protection for animals, it must not be so restrictive as to prevent an honest, caring farmer from making an honest, reasonable living. If the legislation does add constraints to the profitability of food production, then producers have a right to expect society to contribute to the increased costs involved. Society demands cheap food but is reluctant to meet the costs to the farmer, and if cheap food cannot be produced at home, then it will be imported. Retailers are notoriously fickle in that regard.
But the suspicion that I have of fresh laws is not simply based on commercial anxiety. There has been considerable progress by way of code and practice in the pig industry. I know it is the opinion of the RSPCA that pig farmers have been more proactive and inventive than almost any other farming group in response to welfare pressures. At the present time nearly 80 per cent. of pig farmers belong to the Farm Assured British Pig Scheme (Fabpig). That means a quarterly inspection by a veterinary surgeon, with a long check-list which is regularly tightened up in the light of experience and new research. Supermarkets and purchasers demand this standard care, and it is improving the welfare of pigs. It is an example of co-operation between producer, commercial operatives and welfare pressure.
Another example is found in the co-operation between the RSPCA, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the Humane Slaughter Association. They put limits on production practice through the Freedom Food scheme. Meat produced in an approved way by the scheme can be purchased in many of the major retail outlets. Another good example is afforded by Cambac PSA, which places a strong emphasis on research sponsored by the RSPCA. It has the confidence of producers and is in a good position to lead welfare reforms.
But issues which appear to be clear in the Bill reveal limited common ground among those groups of which I have spoken. Regarding space allowance, the Bill carefully calls for a doubling of the allowances recommended in the Welfare Code for Pigs, as well as an increase in those recently proposed by the European group. It may seem humane to provide more space: but is that what the pig really needs? Pigs are group living animals and tend to huddle when resting, except when the ambient temperatures are very high. In the wild they may live in "nests". Good insulation, temperature control and constant water supply are the norm. There are times when too much space can be a real disadvantage, as has already been illustrated.
In regard to the provision of appropriate bedding, though the term is a vague one for a law, it is agreed that pigs have a strong preference to root in the ground. They are active, exploratory animals. They like to manipulate material such as straw, and all that reduces the incidence of abnormal behaviour. However, certain forms of bedding can be a source of infection for sow and piglets, and this clause, if accepted, might immediately preclude the use of houses with slatted floors. That may be the intention; some reports claim that slatted floors lead to lameness and injuries. Not so, say others. Some compromise is necessary here. In many stalls you can find

77
the pigs well able to combine bedding in one area and slats or concrete floors for cleanliness. Pigs are intelligent enough to know how to use the combinations within reasonable space. They are recognisably the same animals as we know from raw, romantic settings.
Weaning is an unnatural procedure; but farming is unnatural. Although natural weaning takes place much later than four weeks, the demand for lean meat excludes the fat sow and the milk production needed for the fast-growing piglets of today's breeds is very great. Sows start to lose weight in the second week after parturition and some sows become severely emaciated if piglets are left with them after four weeks. A more realistic regulation would be: "Routine weaning earlier than 28 days is not permitted but individual litters may be weaned early if the welfare of that sow or those piglets would otherwise be very poor".
Tail docking is as much debated as anything. Perhaps the RSPCA puts the case accurately
"The RSPCA accepts that tail docking may he necessary to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by tail biting; but Freedom Food will not permit this practice once enough information is available regarding the husbandry methods which prevent tail hiting outbreaks".
Clearly, the RSPCA is not convinced that we know enough about tail biting to allow it to prohibit docking in its welfare standards.
Tail biting is certainly not unknown among free range pigs. Hence, the rightness of the simple suggestion that it is created only by bad management and poor housing or by early weaning is not so obvious. Nor is the operation of docking within a few hours of birth quite so fearsome as its opponents seem to suggest.
The Bill attempts to improve the welfare of pigs by prescription of husbandry methods. An important omission is inevitable. By far the most important influence on animal welfare is the ability of the person looking after the animals. Research reveals that the knowledge, training and awareness of farmers are all closely associated with the reduction of disease and discomfort. Britain used to have an outstanding agricultural training board, the ATB. This laid on excellent courses for farmers and stockmen. It has been emasculated as a means of saving money. I believe that better funding of the ATB (which could be achieved by using levy money) would greatly help animal and particularly pig welfare.
The key figure in that wonderful classic by PG Wodehouse, The Empress of Blandings (a black Berkshire pig), was Lord Emsworth's long-standing pigman Wellbeloved. When he, the dedicated stockman, went missing things went downhill. It is a parable from another world. Contented, well-cared-for, regularly inspected pigs will alone produce the goods. The villains or cowboys of factory farming will not. I do not believe, alas, that this legislation is urgent for the well-being of pigs. I know that it is certainly not timely for the morale of those who look after them.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, as a veterinary surgeon I welcome any legislation which improves the welfare of animals, especially those that are kept under intensive systems. Hence the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House. As this is the Second Reading, it provides an opportunity to put forth comments on the provisions of the Bill in the hope that, should it go further, modifications might occur to some of its proposals. It is particularly welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he would accept any amendment if it improved the Bill.
I wish to address three of the main issues in the Bill: space and bedding; weaning and tail-docking. In doing so, may I say that I, like other noble Lords, have consulted a number of experts in pig welfare. Several of them are veterinarians, a number are on the European Scientific Veterinary Committee on the welfare of intensively kept pigs. I wish to state at once that everyone recognises that good farming, good pig production and good welfare go together, hand in hand. I recognise that intensive farming is not necessarily inimical to the welfare of animals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority of intensive pig-producing units in this country are, in addition, good welfare units and even more so, in view of the now recognised sentient nature of the animals.
Perhaps I may deal with space requirements, first, as laid out in the schedule to the Bill. It is my understanding that they are somewhat in excess of those recognised by the experts. One problem is that they are founded on a stepwise requirement based on the weight of the animal. That is difficult to judge because in any group or litter of pigs there is a difference in weight between the piglets in the litter. A more acceptable criterion promoted by the European Union and ADAS is that it should be based on the growth curve rather than a weight curve.
The question of bedding has come up in various speeches by noble Lords and the requirement for bedding is acceptable to everyone. It provides occupational activity for the piglets in the form of rooting and so on. Of course, the bedding must be kept clean otherwise disease may occur. In that context, we all recognise that pigs are naturally clean animals and, given space, will separate an area into a sleeping area with straw, one for rooting and one for defecation for which the slatted floors are quite acceptable.
The subject that has caused particular concern to a number of noble Lords and others in the field of pig welfare is weaning. I regret that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on the need to keep piglets up to six weeks on the sow. The modern cross-bred sow has been developed to wean her piglets at three to four weeks. Beyond that time, as has been mentioned, if the piglets are still on the sow she will retain nutrients for herself rather than for her litter. She will thus compromise the piglets, to the detriment of their welfare.
With the older breeds of pigs, the sows may well carry on feeding the rapidly growing litter—and at that time they grow rapidly—to the sows' detriment which may become markedly emaciated, lessening their welfare. The practice of weaning at three to three-and-a-half weeks

79
with a mean of 26 days is the norm in this country. If it is extended to four weeks, 28 days, an acceptable time to the welfarist and adopted in Germany and Denmark, I understand it would not compromise the production costs in intensive pig-rearing.
Finally, as regards tail-docking, I consider the docking of any animal's tail as an unnecessary mutilation. In another area, I have chaired committees on mutilation of animals where docking has been considered to be totally unnecessary unless an undocked situation is to the detriment of the animal. In the pig-rearing field, we see docking taking place for the purpose of preventing or reducing tail-biting. We should assess the reasons for the tail-biting rather than attempting merely to ban tail-docking in order to correct the problem.
To associate tail-biting with early weaning is, I am afraid, an over-simplification of the problem. It is a complex problem and there is increasing evidence that there may be genetic aspects, certainly nutritional and environmental aspects, as well as atmospheric overtones.
I wish to quote from a letter from Dr. Guise and Professor Penny, formerly of the Royal Veterinary College, on the issue of tail-biting. The letter states that:
"The provision of straw bedding had no influence on levels of tail biting. Pigs on liquid feed had higher levels of tail-biting than those fed pellets or meal. Floor and trough feeding resulted in higher levels of mild tail biting, compared with feeding via single or double space feeders. Ad libitum feeding resulted in much lower levels of mild tail biting compared with restricted feeding or feeding to appetite. Units with artificial ventilation had higher levels of tail biting when compared with units with natural ventilation".
Therefore, I hope your Lordships will see that it is not a simple issue and that much more work is necessary on the question of tail biting. Much more research is being undertaken in this country by ADAS, by Cambac, which has been referred to, and by the Scottish agricultural colleges. One of my fears is that if a Bill on animal welfare such as this is enacted, it may be doubly difficult to undertake the research that is necessary so we can reach the stage that we all wish to reach; namely, the best welfare conditions in which to breed and rear pigs.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Bill has little chance of reaching the statute book even without the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Nevertheless, I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss some of these issues. I think my noble friend Lady Mallalieu was right and a debate might have sufficed. On the other hand, if we should be fortunate enough to get the Bill to the Committee stage, a number of points have been raised on all sides of the House which would be worthy of much more discussion than we can achieve today.
We should not allow our consideration of the Bill to be influenced either by the rush of sentiment about pigs created by the exploits of the Tamworth Two or by the
80
sentiment about farmers which has been aroused by their present economic difficulties. I am genuinely sympathetic to the present difficulties being experienced by farmers. They are real. I was sorry not to be able to take part in last Wednesday's debate but I could not be here all day. I believe that help must be found to alleviate their current difficulties.
Support for the principles underlying the Bill should come for more permanent reasons. Legislation, I hope, will outlast the rush of sentiment to which I referred. The long-term economic health of the industry and the duty of care towards farm animals are the basis of good husbandry. That can be achieved only by persuasion and to a certain extent by regulation. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was right to say that the industry must be involved in any decisions that are made and must be persuaded to look at some of its present methods.
Quite separately from the interest aroused from recent events, there is among the consumers of farm produce a growing revulsion against the darker side of food production. Whether it be over meddling with genetics or the unnatural conditions meted out to factory farmed animals, public interest is increasing and opinion is hardening against too many deviations being practised in the so-called "interests of the consumer". The economic effects of this are not yet obvious, but there is a considerable growth in vegetarianism among young people—I am not a vegetarian: I enjoy a bacon and egg breakfast as much as anyone—and a demand for organic products which the farmers of this country are so far unable to satisfy.
Perhaps I may mention at this stage that I was foolish enough to start buying a good deal of organic produce. It costs a lot of money. Pig farmers present may be interested to hear that I was offered organic bacon at £13.49 per kilo. I am not sure how that compares with the live weight but it is probably a great deal more than farmers would expect the end product to fetch. So perhaps they should look a little more closely at the possibilities of organic pig rearing.
The noble Lord's Bill would go some way towards improving the image of pig producers and would meet a good deal of the unease of conscience caused by present practices. In tackling the major causes of tail biting—I understand from the debate so far that the causes are arguable—there is no doubt among many people involved in pig rearing that boredom is at the heart of at least some of the difficulties. The Bill might discourage the abuse of the 1994 Welfare of Livestock Regulations which is currently taking place. Paragraph 20 of the regulations states:
"In order to satisfy their behavioural needs, all pigs, taking into account environment and stocking density. must have access to straw or other material or object suitable to satisfy those needs".
I wonder how many of the farms we were discussing earlier obey that paragraph of the regulations. I have been given to understand that pigs reared in the open air tail bite far less than pigs reared under more crowded conditions.

81
The practice of tail docking without anaesthetic is painful and that it should be done routinely and unnecessarily is unacceptable. It is not encouraged in the regulations. In September 1997 the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Union stressed that tail docking was painful when it was carried out and that it could lead to prolonged pain. Even if we do not want fresh laws, as the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, does not, we should ensure that the present laws are obeyed.
I want to come to two items which are not covered by the Bill but which, if the Bill reaches Committee stage, I should like to consider in a little more detail. The Bill does not cover the mutilations of castration and teeth clipping. At one time castration was routinely carried out to avoid boar taint of the meat. Nowadays most piglets are slaughtered before the age of sexual maturity so the problem of boar taint does not arise. But some 10 per cent. of piglets are still castrated. It would be interesting if the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, or the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, could give some indication of why that should happen. In 1992 the Farm Animal Welfare Council condemned the practice as a "largely unnecessary mutilation" which should be avoided. Surely the time has come for pig castration to be prohibited altogether.
The clipping of piglets' teeth was prohibited under the 1994 Act except where there is evidence of injury to sows or other piglets by not doing so. But on some farms piglets' teeth are clipped to gum level before such evidence could have emerged. I agree with Compassion in World Farming that it is time this loophole was closed and I regret that the Bill does not allow for this. The problems of tearing of sows' teats and injury to other piglets which the clipping is carried out to prevent is largely due to the breeding of sows to produce too large a litter and the remedy is in the hands of the breeders.
I genuinely believe that it is in the long-term interests of the farming industry to remedy some of the excesses which are beginning to worry consumers as well as animal welfare organisations. In the end, good husbandry is good business. I support the principles underlying the Bill and I hope that its provisions and some of the other points raised will be picked up by the Ministry in the not too distant future.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Emsworth, had he been here tonight, would have reminded your Lordships that the requirements of pigs for warmth, clean surroundings and good ventilation are virtually the same as those for human beings. Without a comfortable environment—here I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley—pigs simply do not thrive. Their welfare is not just a matter of compassionate husbandry; it is a commercial necessity. Rapid growth and efficient conversion of feeding stuffs into meat will not take place if pigs are not reared, housed and fed correctly. Any pig farmer failing in this respect will very quickly go out of business.
82
Practices which fall short of the best standards of pig husbandry are prohibited—we have been reminded about that tonight—by the Welfare of Livestock regulations which came into force on 10th August 1994. There are two matters outstanding—tethering and stalls—as we have been reminded. They have another year to run. The sooner they come in the better.
Schedule 3 to the regulations contains no fewer than 34 paragraphs covering every possible aspect of pig husbandry. These regulations implement the 1976 European convention for the protection of animals and three other European Council directives. So they apply throughout the Community. This Bill would apply only in the UK.
Clearly, the promoters of the Bill think that existing legislation is inadequate. Clause 1 of the Bill would provide, as we have heard, for double the space that is provided under the welfare regulations, with no obvious practical justification. The provision of straw is covered in paragraph 20 of the schedule to the regulations but, as we have heard, there is a question mark over straw. These matters, together with Clause 2, which is concerned with early weaning, have been dealt with by many noble Lords and certainly by my noble friend Lord Soulsby.
Perhaps I may enlarge on Clause 3, which deals with tails. As we have heard from many noble Lords, for reasons that are not clearly understood pigs have developed the objectionable habit of biting each other's tails, causing suffering and infection. This is a serious health and welfare problem, which can be largely avoided by clipping off, as we heard, the greater part of their tails when the piglets are a few hours old.
This practice is already regulated under the instrument that I have quoted and specifically under paragraph 3 of Part IV of the third schedule to those regulations which says:
"Tail docking shall be carried out routinely only when there is evidence on the farm that injuries arc likely to occur as a result of not carrying out this procedure".
My noble friend Lord Soulsby has given us a most interesting professional view on the subject.
I am grateful for the advice that I have received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which is as follows:
"The RCVS classifies tail docking of piglets as a technique to prevent the disease and suffering caused by tail biting. Transitory pain is inevitable, but tail docking is a useful and acceptable procedure in the light of the unpredictability of tail biting and its harmful consequences".
Further veterinary advice is that both picking up a piglet and sticking a needle into it (which may or may not de-sensitise the tail) can cause more stress than one simple snip. This month's Veterinary Record describes a study showing that un-docked pigs showed three times the incidence of tail biting at slaughter compared with pigs that had been docked at birth.
My grandchildren may ask what useful work, if any, I performed here when I was threatened with the sack for being the 12th Baron and not the first and

83
last. When I tell them that one of the things I did was to argue about pigs' tails, my usefulness may be queried. My reply to them would be that it was not just about pigs' tails and whether they had 0.15 or 0.3 square metres to lie down in when they weigh 10 kilogrammes or less. I would say that it was about doing something to limit the already overburdened statute book with unnecessary legislation.
If Parliament is to be asked to agree to additional animal welfare legislation—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Runcie—it must be satisfied, first, that it will prevent unnecessary suffering; secondly, that it adds to the health and welfare of animals; thirdly, that it is acceptable to, and seen to be necessary by, those people affected; fourthly, that it applies throughout the Community; and, lastly, that it is soundly based in science. I support my noble friend because in my view this Bill fails all those five tests.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this Bill for us tonight. For this Second Reading I have sought information from Compassion in World Farming, the British Veterinary Association, an RSPCA farm animals vet and a FAWC and BVA past president, Bob Stevenson, who is a pig veterinarian in Gwent. I have also read the NFU briefing paper kindly given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, and many other papers relating to pigs, their welfare requirements and the methods of rearing them. So I hope that I have armed myself sufficiently in order to take part in tonight's debate.
I am also mindful of the fact that much of our agriculture, particularly the livestock sector, is in a state of crisis. I listened to much of the timely debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, last Wednesday. I read all of it before starting on my contribution tonight. Many speakers in that debate referred to animal welfare issues highlighted by media attention and thereby causing changes to be made in the way that we farm our animals.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I mention yet another speaker in that debate. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, reminded the House that some 40,000 Dutch died of starvation in the last 18 months of the war and also of food riots in France and Italy. Europe decided that never again would such a tragedy occur. For that reason, I believe that factory, or intensive farming, came into being. Surely, good farming methods and animal husbandry must go hand in hand. By their very nature, higher standards involve higher costs. Welfare does not come cheaply during the process of change. But I believe that change we must if we want to consider ourselves a compassionate society.
Ever since I have been in your Lordships' House I have pleaded the case for improved animal welfare standards, and I do so again tonight. I support this
84
Bill. It is a beginning. I admit to having reservations about certain aspects of it and I shall refer to them in a minute. I truly believe that this Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals, whether they are intensively reared or not.
My formative years were spent on a farm, albeit not in this country. It was an extremely large one. Factory farming methods did not play a part in our lives. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and other speakers, we also kept pigs, not thousands but certainly up to 100. They were fascinating and intelligent creatures; clean, good housekeepers in their resting quarters; playful and curious about everything around them. As a child I enjoyed watching them.
As we know, Clause 1 deals with space allowance and the need for bedding. This Bill doubles the amount of space suggested by the livestock regulations 1994. As I understand it, the 1994 regulations appear to refer only to the lying down area whereas this Bill includes space for dunging, exercise and feeding. Pigs, by their very nature, keep those areas separate. When provided, straw occupies the pigs by allowing them to root, forage and generally explore their surroundings. It is not surprising that pigs kept in a barren environment, closely confined and with nothing to do, will become extremely aggressive towards one another. I suspect that human beings, kept in the same way, might behave similarly. I am also aware that the 1994 regulations regarding space have just come into force, at the beginning of this year, and that farmers have to comply with the regulations. Many noble Lords have referred to pigs' huddling instincts; but surely they also need space in which to move around.
Clause 3, dealing with tail docking, is very much intertwined with the space and bedding requirements of Clause 1. It is already illegal, but it is circumvented by a get-out clause. Dr. Dale Arey, in a review of the scientific literature on pigs, said last year:
"the prevention of tail biting should be approached by improving the conditions in which the pigs are kept. The first measures which should be taken are the provision of bedding and more space to prevent overcrowding".
He went on to say,
"Tail biting is a sign that something is wrong with the system, whether it is due to boredom, overcrowding, ventilation or diet".
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the RSPCA funded research into this problem. They also found that natural ventilation rather than artificial ventilation substantially lowered the incidence of tail biting, as did the supply of straw and, surprisingly, changing from restricted and time-regulated feeding, to one of feeding on demand, or when the pigs wanted it. All of these suggestions add substantially to the quality of life for the short-lived intensively reared pig. The message here seems to be environmental enrichment, by alleviating boredom, and providing materials for the pigs to chew and play with. True, like many animals, pigs are attracted to blood and, should one bite occur, it will spread. That is why aggressive pigs are removed quickly from communal housing. I accept that tail docking may be necessary in

85
some cases, but it should cease to be used routinely. It is illegal and, in many instances, causes great damage of one sort or another to the pig.
I admit to having a problem with Clause 2, mainly because modern sows are bred to produce and suckle up to 14 piglets and I am not convinced that increasing the weaning period to six weeks would be in the best interests of the sow, particularly as she will continue to be restricted in a farrowing crate. Piglets produced by these hybrid sows gain weight more quickly than the breeds of yesteryear. The pigs of my youth were smaller and had litters of only up to seven or eight. If early weaning does contribute to the problem of tail biting, perhaps a return to the breeding of sows with larger fat reserves and smaller litters could help to solve the problem as these sows were able to suckle their young for longer. This is not an ideal world so I know that is hardly likely to happen. Like many other speakers, I am grateful that sow stalls and tethers will be illegal from 1st January 1999. I understand that the majority of sows in this country go into the farrowing stalls only a couple of days before giving birth whereas in the past they had to be tethered and contained in the sow stall for the whole of their pregnancy.
Finally, I should like to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will not press his amendment—I suspect that he will—but if the Bill is given the opportunity to go into Committee, it can be amended. As it is a Private Member's Bill, and is not government-sponsored, it has a very long way to travel. I believe that animal welfare needs to be kept on the political agenda and, for that reason, I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me, but I simply cannot stay until the end of the debate. My noble friend Lord Stanley is looking at me very crossly. However, I rise to speak because I was a pig farmer for 13 years from 1968 to 1981. I had 70 sows and fattened the progeny to baking weight. I recognise the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in introducing this Bill. I knew the noble Lord at Oxford nearly 50 years ago. We have spent quite a lot of time with each other, chasing a drag line across the country.
However, I am afraid that I oppose the Bill and support my noble friend Lord Stanley in his amendment. I oppose Clauses 2 and 3 particularly. They prohibit early weaning and tail docking respectively. Seventeen years ago I routinely weaned pigs at three weeks when, although it was not the norm to do so, many people did that. I am not quite sure of my facts because I am out of date but, to be quite honest, I do not think that all modern pig producers routinely wean their pigs so early. Of course, I may be wrong. I can assure the House from my own experience that the piglets did not suffer from being weaned so early; nor did the sows.
As other noble Lords have said, even 17 years ago sows were bred in order to breed lean meat in their progeny when they went to pork and bacon. If piglets
86
were not weaned until six weeks or later, they would undoubtedly lose a lot of weight. Obviously, during the past 17 years the breeds have got even leaner. The large white cross is now the norm in pig breeding and this country, incidentally, is in the lead in pig breeding. We imported Landrace from Denmark 40 years ago, much against the will of the then Minister of Agriculture. There was strong opposition to the importation of Landrace. Thank goodness that the people concerned were very determined because, as a result, this country's pig breeding industry is world renowned. We export breeding pigs all over the world.
I strongly oppose Clause 3, which prohibits tail docking. I once did not have the tails docked of a particular group of pigs and there was blood everywhere in the fattening house. The pigs suffered very much more from that than they would from having their tails docked. I routinely tail docked at three days-old. The pigs did not appear to suffer at all. They would squeal if you held them tightly, but the actual snip, which was carried out with sharp scissors or clippers, did not appear to hurt them in the least. There was no blood.
We cut the pigs' teeth at the same time. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has referred to this point. At the time, I was told that we had to cut their teeth—not so much because the pigs hurt each other or the sow (although that might happen during suckling); but because the pigs' mouths swelled up. One had to cut eight teeth—two on the top on each side; the permanent teeth—and if that was not done, the mouths would swell up and the pigs would suffer tremendously. I agree that this practice hurts the pigs—they do not like it at all but I do not think that the pain lasts for more than a day or so.
As with animal husbandry in general, pig farmers must have contented animals. They would not carry out these practices which take time and are not very pleasant if they were unnecessary. Unlike my noble friend Lord Elliot of Morpeth, I have not had experience of the piggeries that he saw. I do not doubt his word as to that. In my day pig farmers were well advised by ADAS and feed companies, although obviously they benefit from selling feed. I saw many piggeries but only the high-class ones with slats and different methods of keeping pigs. In those piggeries I never saw pigs suffer. Although pigs are perhaps happier on straw I believe that they are content on slats.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, one must welcome the recent statement this month by the animal welfare Minister, Mr. Elliot Morley. Further, one must hope that during the Government's presidency of the EU they will be able to rectify the problems caused by the absence of common minimum standards for animal welfare across Europe. I have spent much of my working life in animal production. Although I no longer have a Buckler cow or sheep enterprise due to the poor economic climate in the UK livestock

87
industry, I still have a deer enterprise whose EU-licensed larder has an annual throughput of 500 carcasses a year.
I have a great love for all animals especially competition horses. Sadly, I miss being able to work with a suckler herd. Although I have not been personally involved in pig production, I have seen it in many forms and feel able to speak to this amendment today. It is comforting and right that the animal production management of farmed pigs has developed and changed rapidly in recent years, but the conditions for the welfare of pigs provided for in this Bill are not laudable and would detract and not add to the health and welfare of pigs. There seems to be no scientific or practical justification for this Bill.
If the conditions in this Bill were implemented unilaterally in the UK pig industry, I question whether there would be a serious UK pig industry, left. Unlike the rest of Europe, shortly the UK will rightly be improving the welfare of its pigs by the banning of sow stalls and tethers. However, this Bill will greatly increase the cost of production, resulting in the vulnerability of our market not only to our other EU markets but also world markets. For example, last year's fixed cost for pigs in a fully insulated farrowing house, complete with partitions and all services, with weaning between three and six weeks, is between £1,560 and £2,845 per sow, as listed in the Agricultural Budgeting and Costings Book. To provide the space allowance in the noble Lord's Bill, which has no scientific or practical justification, will very nearly double the new spacing allowance per sow which came into effect on 1st January 1998. Thus, it would go a long way to doubling fixed costs, making this type of production in the UK not feasible.
I refer to the farming of animals as animal production because that is what it is about. It is the rearing of animals by the use of good quality husbandry techniques in order to produce an end product that can compete with similar products. There will always be a delicate balance between the farmer's wishes to use the best possible code of livestock welfare and what the end product can stand in terms of cost. Statistically, the average family will wish to buy the best quality product for the cheapest price. If the UK cannot better or equal the price of similar foreign products then our farmers will not be able to sell their product. The result will be, first, that the UK consumer will buy pig products from countries that rear pigs under less favourable welfare conditions than our pigs enjoy at present; and, secondly, the UK's total food import deficit will increase.
In conclusion, I believe that the welfare conditions in the Bill are detrimental not only to pigs but to the UK pig industry. Therefore, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for explaining the reasons for his amendment with such clarity. I recognise, as other noble Lords have recognised this evening, that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of
88
Whitley, introduces this Bill for the most honest and forthright of reasons because of his commitment to animal welfare reform. We on these Benches have always been committed to the highest possible standards of animal welfare at home and abroad. We have always recognised that it is important to promote higher standards throughout the European Union.
As I understand it, the Bill could threaten the viability of the pig industry in this country by imposing upon it requirements that do not have to be met by the pig industries of other EU countries. Before we approve of such measures surely we must consider the question of proportionality. We need to be convinced that these measures are so vital that we can accept the direct economic consequences to the rural economy with equanimity. This point was made clearly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
What would be the consequences? We are advised that the proposals could have a devastating financial impact on the UK pig industry, with consequent rural unemployment and job losses in the food processing industry. Are the measures in the Bill so vital to animal welfare that they override the needs of the rural economy? According to a number of my noble friends—this matter has been clearly spelt out by my noble friend Lord Stanley—the answer is no. They have explained how the measures proposed in the Bill would not achieve the stated objective of improving the overall welfare of pigs: rather, they would achieve the reverse. Evidence has been adduced this evening to show that the Bill would work counter to the health and welfare of pigs. That view is supported by the veterinary profession. I listened with great interest to the points made by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who is himself an expert in this profession.
Good intentions lie behind this Bill but I believe that the introduction of this Bill to try to achieve those intentions is misguided. The Bill introduces measures in regard to space allowances, bedding, weaning and tail docking. I shall confine my brief remarks to just three of those. I believe that tonight we have heard detailed expert views on those four parts of the Bill. Space allowances would be doubled by the Bill as against the measures which came into effect on 1st January 1998, as my noble friend Lord Rotherwick explained. One wonders why the doubling of space has been plucked out of the air. What is the scientific evidence to support such a proposal? Before inserting such details into a Bill evidence should be to hand to persuade the House that a specific figure should be provided for in the Bill.
As to bedding, the Bill requires that where pigs are kept in a building they should be provided with appropriate bedding. Approaching this from a background in the law, one asks why the Bill does not define in Clause 5 "appropriate bedding". I believe that the omission of that definition is itself a defect of the Bill. We have been informed this evening that many traditional forms of bedding can provide a real risk to a pig's health by raising dust and spore levels which can induce pneumonia.
Finally, much has been said with regard to tail docking. The Bill would make it an offence to dock routinely. although an individual case may be allowed on grounds of health, carried out under anaesthetic, if certified by a vet.

89
My noble friend Lord Middleton has drawn our attention to the fact that regulations already exist which cover such tail docking prohibition; it is an offence to tail dock routinely. If that ban is being flouted—and some noble Lords have said that it is—the appropriate action is for prosecutions to be brought. It is not the appropriate course to pass yet another legislative measure on exactly the same point. To do that—and I do not seek to be flippant but to give a day-by-day example—would be as time wasting as creating another offence of speeding on the roads just because so many drivers break the speed limit every day of the year.
The more I have listened to the arguments put by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and others who would reject the Bill at this stage, the more I believe that their arguments are persuasive. I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. It would indeed have been appropriate for the content of this Bill to have been the subject of an Unstarred Question. That would have given us the opportunity to range over a wider subject matter but in greater depth. It is a matter which is a fruitful subject for debate where there can be more of a consensus approach than if we are trying to see whether the Bill should take up further time within the parliamentary calendar.
There are occasions when the House should consider very carefully whether a Bill should take the time of the House in Committee and at other stages. The more I heard noble Lords saying what they thought should be a part of the Bill, the more I felt that my noble friend Lord Stanley had proved his point. that this Bill does not meet the objectives that its proposers say it should. It would work counter to animal welfare and should not perhaps take up the time of this House further.
Having heard all the arguments tonight, I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has made a persuasive case and I support his amendment.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, this has been a useful and informative debate. The one thing that we can agree is that all of us are in agreement that we need to ensure the welfare of pigs and that they are kept under the best possible conditions.
Before I arrived I had been given much advice in relation to the Bill and the views that could be expected. The only people who have not been in touch with me are the Tamworth Two, which were referred to earlier. I fully expected Sundance and Butch to give their personal views on tonight's debate, particularly as their tails were undocked. I thought they might have been in touch with us.
What I did not expect was the debate between my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the right reverend Prelate in which they discussed the political tendencies of their respective pigs. It points to the balance that has been achieved that in one case they voted socialist. having come from Nye Bevan, and in the
90
other, knowing the ancestors of the right reverend Prelate, he was quite sure that they would have been Conservative had they got to the ballot box.
Returning to the Bill, animal welfare was prominent in the Labour manifesto and ranged over many things. In relation to animals reared for food, it promised better treatment for them. As has been mentioned, we can be very proud in this country that we are ahead in the stance we have taken on pig welfare, perhaps with the exception of Sweden. We have recognised that the lack of freedom for sows in close-confinement stalls and tether systems creates real welfare problems. As we all know. 1st January 1999 is not far off, when all stalls and tethers in the UK will become a thing of the past.
Our task in the forthcoming review of the European directive on pig welfare is to persuade other member states similarly to phase out such systems. The Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee has recently recommended that this should be the way forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Government have sympathy with the aims of the Bill. However, the problems that it seeks to address are perhaps best tackled by other means.
We share the concerns that have been expressed about the high level of tail docking of piglets. Too many farmers are still mutilating their animals routinely in this way without properly considering whether they can improve the environment in which the pigs live to avoid the need to tail dock. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 2126) already provide that tail docking should not be carried out routinely, which it appears to be at the moment, but only where there is evidence on the farm that injuries to other piglets have occurred or are likely to occur. There is a need to remind farmers that legislation already exists and to explore the use of other methods to control aggressive behaviour before resorting to tail docking.
This is already in hand, as is research on this aimed at improving our understanding of the factors that influence aggressive behaviour in pigs. We have heard quite a lot on that particular subject from experts tonight. That is why the Government currently have an awareness and enforcement programme underway to question pig farmers about their policy on tail docking.
Whenever Ministry veterinary officers visit pig farms, for whatever reason, they specifically remind pig farmers that the law does not permit routine tail docking of piglets. They emphasise that the law allows the procedure to be carried out only where there is evidence on the farm that injuries have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of not carrying out the procedure. Where necessary the Government veterinary officers encourage farmers to review their policy with their private veterinary surgeon to determine whether tail docking really is necessary on those farms.

91
The debate today will, I am sure, have served the purpose of bringing the Ministry's programme that I have outlined to the attention of the British pig industry. The Government's position on mutilation of animals is clear: we are opposed to routine mutilation. Where such procedures are permitted by law, they should be carried out only as a last resort.
We have been talking about tail biting by other pigs. Very serious injuries and suffering can occur when pigs are tail bitten, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. Tail biting is a problem which needs to be resolved; tail docking is only one of the possible solutions. An improved environment is a necessary solution. I would be delighted if the adoption of the measures proposed in the noble Lord's Bill were certain to prevent tail biting. I regret to say that science is not so robust on this matter.
As has been said, tail biting is a complex, multifactorial problem. At this moment we do not know all the answers. We need more information and I agree with noble Lords who have said that we need more research into it.
The noble Lord has identified in his Bill three factors which may have an influence on tail biting: space allowances, bedding and weaning age. All three may indeed have a bearing on this issue, but I suggest that the answer is not as simple as the Bill would have us believe. Many other factors are relevant in this matter. These include ventilation, weather, diet, water, rooting material and "toys" like foodballs to distract the pig.
In addition, stockmanship has a keen role in all of this. An ill-treated animal will not thrive. Apart from the moral argument regarding cruelty, surely it is not in the farmer's interest to have animals which do not thrive.
Space allowances have been referred to by many noble Lords in relation to the Bill. They are double, as has been pointed out, the minimum areas which only took legal effect throughout Europe from 1st January 1998.
The evidence does not support the view that increasing the space in that way will necessarily reduce or prevent tail biting. We know that substantial investment in the heating and ventilation of pig buildings would need to be made to provide the right thermal and quality conditions for fewer pigs. That was referred to by many noble Lords.
Another point that has proved contentious is the Bill's proposal that the minimum weaning age should be six weeks. UK and EU legislation provides that it should be no fewer than three weeks. In current practice it is normally between 23 and 24 days. It has been pointed out that pigs are prone to disease, particularly when mixing with other litters, and with a changing environment. When pigs are weaned at three weeks they still have significant immunity acquired from the mother. At six weeks—this is a factor we must all bear in mind—that protection is much less. The European Commission's Scientific
92
Veterinary Committee recently studied the whole subject of pig welfare. At that time it did not associate weaning at three weeks with tail biting.
I turn now to bedding. The Government sympathise with the proposal that all pigs should have appropriate bedding. Again, science is equivocal as to whether that helps to avoid tail biting. The provision of bedding has other welfare benefits for pigs. The Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee has made a recommendation along those lines. We are currently awaiting the Commission's detailed proposals on how the existing directive should be revised. The codes of recommendations for the welfare of pigs issued by MAFF states:
"Bedding, and especially straw, contributes towards the need of the pig for thermal and physical comfort and satisfies some of its behavioural requirements".
Ongoing research, some of which is being funded by the Government, is teaching us more about the behavioural needs of pigs, and how to minimise aggression and stress. We need to learn more about the factors that can influence tail biting and to test those on farm situations. There is a need, as I have said, to remind farmers of the existing legislation, and to explain to them that they should explore the use of other measures to control aggressive behaviour before resorting to tail docking. That, as I have said, is in hand, as is research aimed at improving our understanding of the factors which influence aggressive behaviour in pigs.
I shall remark on two points that have been made. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who asked what the Government's attitude was to farrowing crates, and whether the Government will ban them. The answer is, "not at present", but we continue to fund research into alternative systems which give more freedom to the sow while providing adequate protection for the piglets. The Scientific Veterinary Committee supports our view that a ban should not be implemented until suitable systems have been developed.
My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned castration. Our understanding is that that has been practically eliminated in this country. We were surprised when she mentioned the figure of 10 per cent. of piglets. We will look into that, and I shall write to her on that point. That is not consistent with our evidence.
In conclusion, it is clear from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government cannot support the Bill's principles. However, in accordance with the usual practice, in the event of a Division I shall abstain, as will my colleagues on the Front Bench.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. and for the kind words that most of them said about me and my motives even if they do not approve of the Bill. My noble friend of longstanding, Lord Harding of Petherton unfortunately had to speak and then leave, which is a practice that your Lordships deprecate. I think that I can say, without being too sanctimonious, that in 30 years in your Lordships' House that is something I have done only twice.

93
Nevertheless, I am always grateful when someone who would have voted against me had they stayed speaks and leaves.
Your Lordships have produced a great deal of expertise, and made a strong case for taking the Bill to a Committee stage where we can argue out many of the details. Some points were underlying the speeches in favour of the amendment. I shall comment upon one or two of them. First, there is a general theory that if a pig is putting on weight it cannot be suffering or be badly looked after. That is nonsense. It was exposed a long time ago by the then agricultural correspondent of The Times, who pointed out that the only time in his life when he had seriously put on weight was when he was in the trenches in the First World War. It is possible to be in appalling conditions and to put on weight. It becomes a compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, conducted his case with courtesy. I am sorry that he was unable to deal with Professor Broom's evidence in his opening speech and is reserving it for his next speech, when I shall be unable to challenge him seriously. I shall not answer all the arguments that have been put forward. As I said, they are mainly points for the Committee stage. I shall quote the European report on the welfare of intensively kept pigs from the Scientific Veterinary Committee on the subject of tail docking.
It has been suggested that the veterinary profession is in favour of tail docking. The report is a good, up-to-date one. I do not believe that anyone would challenge the expertise of the people involved, although the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may in his next speech. On tail biting, it states,
"Tail biting can cause serious welfare and economic problems. Tail docking reduces these, but carries short-term pain when it is carried out, and long-term pain where neuromas form. A procedure which reduces the serious problems associated with tail biting by making the tail painful to touch and painful at other times seems undesirable. Other methods for the reduction of tail biting exist. When pigs with intact tails are fed an adequate diet, provided with sufficient water, provided with straw or other manipulable materials or earth for rooting and kept at a stocking density that is not too high, tail biting is seldom serious".
In answer to those noble Lords who say that more research is needed, the report quotes from five separate reports and pieces of research carried out during the past five years. It continues:
"Tail biting is an indication of an inadequate environment and indicates that welfare is poor in the animal carrying out the biting".
It has been said that because the change cannot be made on a European level we should not make it on a unilateral level. Our example goes a long way and is useful in moving Europe towards the actions it should be taking. We should not be putting back the cause of reform if we were to act alone.
As regards whether castration or tooth clipping should be involved, or whether the appropriate bedding should be spelt out, those are matters with which we can deal in Committee. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, we have heard the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading. I shall not attempt to delay your Lordships any longer by trying to sum up your views or even to give Professor Broom's alleged statement a "going over". That would be unfair because the noble Lord would be unable to reply.
If your Lordships allow the Bill a Second Reading you will be accused, for better or worse, of putting yet another nail into the farmers' coffin. I commend the amendment to the House.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 23.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mackay of Ardbecknish. L.

Annaly, L.

Middleton, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Boardman, L.

Norrie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Palmer, L.

Cadman, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford. L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Cross, V.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rowallan, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Runcie, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Seccombe, B.

Holmpatrick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Kimball, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-Contents

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carlisle, E.

Maddock, B.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wharton, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.