---

Baroness Miller of Hendon: Because we have discussed this previously, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will not be surprised that I am not supporting these amendments. The atmosphere is so very nice this afternoon that I do

11 Apr 2002 : Column CWH503

not want to put a word in that somehow upsets that atmosphere, but I know that the noble Baroness will not mind my making a couple of points.

The amendments propose a whole new concept of time off for study leave. This is added to paternity leave, maternity leave and adoption leave, to say nothing about time off for domestic emergencies which came up under the previous Employment Relations Act. The new subsections, whose general provisions follow earlier ones in the Bill relating to fixed-term working, do not specify how much time off an employee may demand. The noble Baroness pointed out that employees must specify the amount of time but did not say what that time would be. That is different from specifying the amount of time off required. It may be more than would be acceptable to an employer, given all those other leave provisions.

Even though Amendment No. 223B(1)(b)(ii) means that the employer can refuse to grant an application on the ground of the detrimental effects on his business, there is no ceiling on the amount of time off that an employee may seek under Amendment No. 223B(2)(c), and, in theory, he could ask for the time needed to obtain a degree. There is no limit on the number of employees who might be entitled to do this. Some companies might be hard put to find any employee left working in the factory, office or wherever if all the employees were getting all this time off for all these different reasons.

How would the employer know that the employee was actually studying? Could the employer demand to see what progress the employee was making? In other words, how many exams taken pursuant to Amendment No. 223A(1)(b) may an employee fail before his employer could turn round and say, "That is enough, I need you back in the workplace"?

This amendment would place an intolerable burden on all employers, large and small. I believe that it could and would result in a company becoming uncompetitive.

I can only come back to where I started. Under the new regulations—I am not commenting on whether they are bad or otherwise—employees will be entitled to paternity leave, maternity leave, adoption leave and, as I said, to domestic leave for emergencies. All those are accepted and exist now, but the idea of granting unlimited study leave, without specifying a time limit or maximum number of employees, would be a retrograde step and would cause great hardship to employers.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Razzall: Before the Minister responds, could I intervene for a moment in relation to the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has made?

First, I acknowledge that the climate of the Committee this afternoon is certainly somewhat different from what it has been; our debates are certainly shorter. The point that the noble Baroness made was a travesty of what my noble friend Lady Sharp indicated. My noble friend bent over backwards

11 Apr 2002 : Column CWH504

to indicate that she had drafted the amendment in such a way that none of the perils of which the noble Baroness was speaking would apply. There are all sorts of safeguards built into her proposal, but the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, simply ignored them and suggested that that approach was adding yet another burden on British industry.

My second point is that, as we have debated the Bill in Committee, it has become clear that, although we on this side support much of the Bill, we have expressed reservations about quite a lot of it. Nevertheless, we support the overarching theme of the Bill, and in particular the idea that British industry has moved on from the world that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, described. We as a society, the Government as a government and we as political parties—and those of us who struggle to earn our living—are living in a world in which we encourage members of staff and employees to improve their training, knowledge and skills. Not only does society benefit; the employer also benefits. To suggest that a person's right to apply to have time off to study imposes an unnecessary burden on employers, and bearing in mind in particular the safeguards that the noble Baroness described, is to mis-describe what my noble friend Lady Sharp wishes to do. More particularly, it harks back to a world that no longer exists and which will never again exist.

Baroness O'Cathain: Before the Minister replies, I see the safeguards in paragraphs (i) to (ix) in subsection (1)(b) of Amendment No. 223B, but the fact remains that huge facilities are currently available for people to study in evening classes. There are all sorts of colleges and I see "Enrol now" signs in all the places that I pass through on my way home. I would have thought that, if employees really want to better themselves and increase their skills, that is the line to take. Giving study leave to other employees creates problems within the workforce among those who have their heads down, are working away through a normal working day and see others "swanning off". I know that that is not the right term because they are going to do additional study. However, there is a problem within the workforce not only for the employer, who is trying to organise the pattern of work, but also for the peer group from which that employee comes because the arrangement would set up a problem between employees.

I believe that we should reconsider the proposal. If people want to acquire better skills, more learning or whatever, they should do so in their own time. Perhaps the employer, who wants to encourage an increase in their skills, could offer to contribute to their costs or award an additional bonus. However, going off in the middle of the day on a fairly regular basis is really not on.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I add to the comments of my noble friend. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thought I was being unfair to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. That was not my intention. I took note of her exceptions and said that, although Amendment No. 223B means that the employer can refuse to agree on the grounds of

11 Apr 2002 : Column CWH505

detrimental effects—I used one of the examples involving the employer's business—there is no actual ceiling on the time. My noble friend rightly said that people can attend evening classes and many of them do so but, if we are going to have the right to time off during the day—apart from every other right—there has to be some indication of how that would be controlled. Could someone go off for a degree? How would you know what was being studied?

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that this was rather a long amendment and that she had been to the Clerk's office to try to sort that out. I have no doubt that, if the proposal found favour, the situation could somehow be controlled. Perhaps there would be a limit or an arrangement by which the employer would know that the person was actually studying. The noble Baroness said that she was helped with the amendment. I am not criticising her but I point out that it contains a great many loopholes.

Lord Razzall: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I shall use one brief example to demonstrate that what my noble friend is trying to achieve has not been understood by the Conservative Benches. I refer to subsection (1)(a) of Amendment No. 223A. That states that, as a first principle, in order for a qualifying employee to have the right to apply to his employer for time off during working hours for study, the study has to be,

"relevant to the work he is doing",

and it has to promote,

"his understanding of and value in that work".

That is not the same as somebody going to evening classes to learn Latin. There has to be significant benefit to the employer. That must be understood in relation to the amendment. One does not have to agree with it—the noble Baroness obviously does not—but the arguments against it should at least be devoted to what my noble friend said.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Quite right. Before the Minister replies, I would like to add to my noble friend's comments by saying that it was suggested that an employee might go and do a degree. The answer is no, because the qualification has to be specified by the Secretary of State. The big problem is that of low-level qualifications—Level II and Level III. We do not find people at that level taking themselves off to evening classes. They attend evening classes to obtain qualification at a higher level, but it is particularly at this level that there is a lack of willingness. On the one hand, we need to try to persuade them to go off take qualifications, but on the other hand there is the issue of giving them some time off. This is not an "open sesame" to time off; there are all kinds of limitations in this regard. The noble Baroness and I discussed this before this afternoon's sitting and I know that she and her party do not agree with our approach. I understand their position but I do not agree with it.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I had better jump in at this point before we repeat this morning's lengthy considerations of these issues.

11 Apr 2002 : Column CWH506

I would like to deal with all these amendments together because they share a common aim; namely, to introduce an entirely new element into the Bill—that of providing a universal right for employees to take time off for training or study. I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. Indeed, I totally accept the argument about the importance of training to achieving greater productivity. The noble Baroness has argued on a number of occasions that the real problem—the major problem—is with intermediate and lower-level skills. There is a severe shortage in this country in that regard. However, this is not the right time to introduce such measures.

As the noble Baroness said, the Chancellor announced, in his Pre-Budget Report last November, £40 million to test the notion of subsidies for certain types of training, linked to opportunities for employees to take time for study and some compensation for employers who release employees for those activities. That is an immensely complex issue with substantial repercussions for industry and commerce in this country. The length of the amendments that were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is testimony to the complexity of the issue.

The Learning and Skills Council is now just beginning to pilot some activity to design and test out how such a proposal might work in practice and what its implications for employers might be. We intend to evaluate this activity before reaching any conclusions on the merits of employee rights to time off for training.

In the event that the evaluation shows that to be a reasonable way forward, substantial work will be required to assess the impact of any regulation on business and the economy and to consult with those who are likely to be affected before any regulation can be considered.

I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for attempting to help by putting forward these amendments but they are premature, for the reasons that I have stated.

I hope the shortness of this reply is not thought to be any reflection on what is an enormously important subject, but I believe the position of the Government can be very simply stated. This is something we have a great deal of sympathy for, but we believe that more work needs to be done on this, and that these amendments are therefore premature. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw them.

---