25 Oct 2006 : Column 1199
House of Lords
Wednesday, 25 October 2006.
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Energy: Nuclear
Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their reaction to the pledge byMr Warren Buffett of $50 million to establish a nuclear fuel bank run by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and whether they are considering making a matching contribution of their own if the proposal for the nuclear fuel bank is widely accepted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the international community is actively seeking ways to ensure that the development of nuclear energy does not increase opportunities for the proliferation of sensitive technology. The Nuclear Threat Initiative put forward an interesting proposal at a special session of the IAEA last month. At the same meeting, the United Kingdom also put forward an innovative suggestion for an enrichment bond. The IAEA is currently considering these and other proposals, and its conclusions will be important in guiding future decisions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he prepared to put some of these proposals in the Library of the House so that we can be better informed about them? Does he agree that an international system of the sort being explored is by far the best way of heading off the pressure for new enrichment plants, which are the short cut to proliferation, and that the proposal by Mr Warren Buffett is perhaps one way of addressing the fear that countries with civil nuclear will be at a commercial disadvantage vis-Ã -vis countries that already have enrichment capacity?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am delighted to announce that we will put the documents on the bond in the Library of the House so that all Members can see them. I also think that Warren Buffett has made a major contribution, as has the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the role that he played on the high-level panel.
Earlier this year, the UK, together with the US, France, Russia, the Netherlands and Germany, presented to the IAEA board of governors a proposal to provide reliable access to nuclear fuel of exactly the kind described in the Question. Since then, we have been working hard to demonstrate how that would work in practice. The UK’s enrichment bond idea is
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1200
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposal has much merit to it, particularly if one is talking about an international and independent nuclear fuel bank? Does he also agree that the future is bound to involve a major expansion of carbon-free civil nuclear power if we are serious about lowering carbon in the atmosphere; that in those circumstances there is bound to be a huge advance in civil nuclear power around the world; that the inspection system, which we have lived with since the Second World War, is not working very well; and that this alternative of an independent nuclear fuel bank to service and facilitate the use of civil nuclear energy around the world might be a much better approach? So could we have not merely putting the documents in the Library but positive thinking inside Her Majesty’s Government and possible support for an initiative based on these ideas?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I certainly agree that the ideas are important and that they may signal a much more productive way forward than we have had. Placing the documents in the Library just makes sure that everybody has seen the proposals so far asthey have developed. I completely agree that the widespread development of enrichment capabilities leads to the threat of further nuclear proliferation. If states can be assured of reliable access to nuclear fuel, they should and, we hope, will choose not to develop enrichment and processing capabilities of their own. The bond that I have described is one part of a mechanism that in practice—it must be a practical solution—will lead to that outcome.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative board, to which the Buffett proposal was originally made. I wish to press the Minister a little further on the matter. Does he see any conflict between the proposal on the enrichment bonds, which I am delighted to hear has been put forward by the UK Government, and the concept of an LEU bank? That would enable the IAEA to approach a great many countries that have highly enriched uranium, often in a research reactor or something of that kind, with a proposal for substitution by lowly enriched uranium, which cannot be turned into nuclear weapons. Will he consider carefully whether the United Kingdom might support the Buffett initiative, as well as pressing its own case? The two seem to me to be helpful to one another and not in conflict.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think that there will be a difficulty in evaluating the Buffett initiative alongside other initiatives. We are talking about different kinds of nuclear material that could not in practice all be stored in one place; nor would that be desirable. Therefore, we are bound to have different arrangements; some of them will be virtual
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1201
Lord Garden: My Lords, the Minister will beaware that the Buffett proposal—the $50 million—is contingent on one or more countries either coming up with $100 million of matching funds or jump-starting the fuel bank with low-enriched uranium to that value. What are our stocks of low-enriched uranium and to what value would we be able to contribute to such a bank?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not briefed on our stocks of lowly enriched uranium, but I shall ensure that that information is made available in so far as it is not classified material.
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
3.06 pm
Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What guidance they have given to employers and employees on their rights and responsibilities under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, ACAS good practice guidance for employers and employees and DTI guidance on the occupational pensions aspects of the regulations were published in April. The DTI website contains additional guidance, including the Explanatory Notes on regulations. The Directgov and Business Link sites also provide information and an interactive tool for individuals and employers. The Department for Work and Pensions “Be Ready” campaign has provided1.4 million employers with information about the legislation and good-practice guidance, and a quarter of a million further guidance materials have been ordered.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware of the grave concern expressed by the Employers Forum on Age and others—experts in the field who positively want the legislation to improve the lot of older workers—that the regulations in their present form will seriously upset the provision of a wide range of insured employee benefits that are currently available? Will he assure the House that the Government will consider sympathetically the amendments proposed by the EFA, which are designed to prevent that unintended but certainly perverse result?
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1202
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we issued the regulations and the guidance after a great deal of consultation. With the exception of pensions, where further aspects need to be looked at, we should see how the measures work in practice. Further work is being done on pensions, and amendments will be made.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has just said on pensions, will the Government do anything to encourage employers to offer employment opportunities to older women? Many older women would welcome access to light part-time employment as they approach retirement age. Is anything being done to encourage them to do that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I am aware, the regulations are entirely concerned with discrimination and preventing discrimination. Other issues involve encouraging employers to take certain steps, but the matter that we are discussing is different and is a much more difficult task.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that to remove age discrimination at work there needs to be real and equal opportunities for older workers in training and vocational education? That is certainly not the case, particularly regarding NVQs and modern apprenticeships. Have the Government considered the problems that may well arise with regard to employers who want to continue rewarding employees for seniority or long-term service in a job? Will the Government clarify those points?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is clear that the regulations cover discrimination on the ground of age in all aspects—recruitment, promotion, transfer, training, or terms and conditions of employment. They very much cover training, although there are obviously specific issues concerned there.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have sympathy with the Government, because age discrimination raises more complicated issues than many other kinds of discrimination. Is the Minister aware, following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the specific issues raised by the Employers Forum on Age are really quite serious? They include the lack of guidance or sensible policy on redundancy, insured benefits, pension-related matters and government-funded training schemes. It seeks not just policy changes but further guidance to clarify those issues. Would the Government be prepared to look again at the lack of proper guidance, as the forum says, on those issues, and in particular consider giving guidance on what is meant by an “objective justification” for refusing to continue employing workers beyond the age of 65? That seems a particularly important practical question.
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1203
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if there is serious concern on those issues—I have not been made aware of it—I will certainly look at it. If there are real doubts about what the regulations say, we will of course have a further look at them and issue any clarification necessary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister described an incredible amount of guidance that had had to be issued. Does not the need for so much guidance reflect rather badly on the clarity of the regulations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a case where the House normally has it both ways. If there is little guidance, it objects that there is not enough guidance and clarity. If there is a lot of guidance, people say, “That must show that the regulations are not clear”. It looks to me as though there is perfectly sensible guidance, that it has been distributed very widely and as a whole has had a good response.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I will ask a broader question if I may. Very many people want to continue to work full time past the age of 65, but I suspect that very many more would like the opportunity to combine part-time work with a part-time pension. How are the Government progressing their initiatives on that front?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions covers the pension part of the age discrimination legislation, but I will make certain that the noble Baroness has an answer to that question.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will my noble friend also look at the possibility of removing discriminatory upper age limits for appointments to public bodies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if the House would like a briefing on the regulations that is tailored to its particular needs, I am sure DTI officials can provide one.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the regulations are being interpreted by many employers, on legal advice, as having the effect that it is not permissible to request dates such as the start and finish of former employments, let alone of education? Does he appreciate that this is making the process of deciding whether a candidate is suitable for many jobs almost impossible, despite having nothing to do with discrimination on the ground of age?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that there is a question about whether the guidance is right. If there is a question about what the
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1204
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case, as is anecdotally stated, that not only can those dates not be stated but the date of birth cannot be given in a CV or be asked for by employers? That surely must be mad.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think the guidance states that it should not be on the application form, but it can be asked for alongside this for the purpose of monitoring diversification.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the employment of Clerks in this House is subject to the new legislation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot. The two Houses are almost always removed from this legislation for reasons that are slightly obscure to me, but I will look into that and let the noble Baroness know.
Iran: Nuclear Programme
3.14 pm
Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they support the proposal that security guarantees should be offered to Iran by the European Union 3 (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) and the United States, in return for Iranian suspension of work on producing highly enriched uranium.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, Javier Solana presented proposals to Iran in June on behalf of the EU3, China, Russia and the United States. Those proposals offer the basis for a long-term agreement. They would give Iran everything it needs to develop a modern civil nuclear power programme and political/economic benefits, while meeting international concerns. We would support a new conference on regional security and discuss in negotiation any ideas that Iran wishes to propose. Regrettably, Iran has not yet taken the steps necessary for negotiations to begin, including a full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA and the UN Security Council.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. May I ask two further questions? First, will he make it absolutely clear that it is not the purpose of those who are negotiating with Iran to seek regime change in the way indicated yesterday by Mr John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations? Secondly, within the welcome thought of a regional conference, might
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1205
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the proposals made by Javier Solana on behalf of the EU3 plus three, which includes the United States, were very clear and certainly did not involve any notion of regime change; that was never part of the proposals or any of the discussions that followed them. Discussions on any security issues—I should make it clear that Iran itself has never asked for a regional security package of this kind—would have to be held on their merits. I do not think that it is a matter of getting into negotiations by threatening one another, but, equally, Iran must stop the enrichment process. It must abide by United Nations and IAEA decisions. That is absolutely paramount.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, might this not be perceived as rewarding Iran for its contempt of the international community? Is there not some danger of creating an unfortunate precedent?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I suppose that there is always a risk that, if people are particularly truculent and the international community is drawn into ever more detailed negotiations, that could be seen as a reward. I must confess that I look at the matter through the other end of the telescope. Unless we can make diplomatic systems work with a country like Iran, the dangers are very much greater.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are the Government fully briefed on the wilder voices in Washington that are still talking about forcingregime change in Iran or, even, about using military force against Iran? Given that Iran has to be partof the equation in dealing with the problems in neighbouring states—Iraq to one side and Afghanistan to the other—and that we know that some American officials are having to talk to Iran about the management of developments in Iraq, are the Government making it clear to the Americans that we have to deal with Iraq’s neighbours on a constructive basis in order to bring some resolution to the current conflict in Iraq?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I had hoped that from my initial Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it would have been clear that we have urged an open and diplomatic process in which Iran could bring matters to the table, provided that it stops the processes of nuclear proliferation that may well follow from its enrichment programme. It has to do that. We are very open in what we think. If other countries take a different view, it is for them to answer those questions. Everybody understands exactly what we have intended, and Javier Solana put that in terms.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |