CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of Experiments upon Dogs.) (Hansard, 4 April 1919)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood)
I regret that it was not possible to put down upon the Paper the Amendments of the Home Office—

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down to omit Clause 1. I submit that I should be in order in moving that, on the ground that, although it may be directly negative in one sense, it does not negative the Bill as it is at the present moment. It would not prevent the House from subsequenly putting in some Clauses which would not negative the powers approved on Second Reading. I should like to ask if I may move my Amendment to omit Clause 1?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member's Amendment raises the principle of the Bill already decided on the Second Reading. If it were carried, it would nullify that decision. It is therefore out of order.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
Is there not a second Amendment to insert the word "surgical"? Is that in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That would be in order, but the hon. and gallant Member (Sir H. Greenwood) has an earlier Amendment.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, after the word "unlawful," to insert the words, except as hereinafter provided. This is a drafting Amendment to bring the Bill into line with the governing Act, the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, which has governed the whole question of experiments on animals.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Amendment is not on the Paper, and I do not know what its effect will be, but I gather it is a preliminary Amendment to others of a more important character. I should like to ask the hon. Baronet if they are those he wished to move in Committee and which were ruled out of order, in which case they would be out of order here.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The point of Order does not arise at present.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
This Amendment will enable me to move at the proper time the Amendments that the Home Office would like to see in the Bill in order to improve it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I suggest that the point of Order does arise here. If these words are inserted now and you rule afterwards that the subsequent amendments are out of order, this Amendment will make nonsense of the Clause, and is therefore out of order. It has always been the custom in such a case that the question whether the important Amendment is out of order must be taken now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Perhaps the hon. Baronet will explain his subsequent Amendment.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
Is it the case that you, Sir, acting as Deputy-Speaker, are bound by a decision given by the Chairman of the Committee upstairs? Surely it is for you, when the Amendment comes up, to decide whether or not it is in order.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
May I point out that if these words which are now proposed are carried they will clear the way, not only for the Amendment which the hon. Baronet has in mind, but for other manuscript Amendments. I hope no objection will be taken to such manuscript Amendments, seeing that the Bill was only concluded in Committee at lunch time yesterday, and there has been no opportunity of putting Amendments on the Paper.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
I intend to put in Amendments.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The ruling in the Committee will not necessarily govern the proceedings now.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
It would clear the air if I were allowed to read the Amendment which I propose to move after this preliminary Amendment. The Clause reads, From and after the passing of this Act it shall be unlawful to perform any experiment of a nature causing or likely to cause pain or disease to any dog for any purpose whatsoever, either with or without anæsthetics. After the word "anæsthetics" I propose to leave out the remainder of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words except on such certificate being given as is mentioned in the principal Act, stating in addition to the statements required by Section 3 of that Act, that for reasons specified the object of the experiments would necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a dog and that no other animal is available for such experiments.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I submit that that Amendment would be out of order because it goes beyond the scope of the title of the Bill. It is exactly the same Amendment which was moved in Committee upstairs, and which after a very careful consideration the Chairman ruled out of order.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
No.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not know why the hon. Member says No, because I raised the point of Order on Wednesday, and the Chairman said he would consider it. He considered it on Wednesday, and on Wednesday evening, and it was on the next day that after careful consideration he ruled it out of order. The title of the Bill is "A Bill to prevent the vivisection of dogs." It is not a Bill to alter the present law by substituting a different form of certificate from the form of certificate required now. If the Amendment was carried its only effect would be that a different form of certificate would have to be given. That is absolutely outside the scope of the title of the Bill. In Committee the Government realised this, and therefore they proposed to put down Amendments to alter the title. They proposed to leave out the word "prevention," and to insert the words "impose further restrictions on"; so that the title would read, "A Bill to impose further restrictions on the vivisection of dogs." That is a different thing altogether and quite outside the scope of the Bill. 1631 Therefore I ask for your ruling whether this Amendment, which is of a drafting description, which necessitates a consequential Amendment, and the consequential Amendment are not out of order?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS
May I point out that prevention does not necessarily mean complete prevention. There are many Acts in which the prevention is not complete. There are Acts for the prevention of cruelty to children, but it is only partial prevention. Complete prevention is never obtained under such Acts. According to the precedent which applies in these cases, we must read prevention as limited prevention, and therefore I submit that, provided that this Act provides in any shape or form for prevention, it will still be within the scope of the Short Title.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. and gallant Friend is usually very skilful in his argument, but there is no foundation for the contention which he now puts forward. In the case of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Acts we desire to prevent all cruelty to children if we can. My hon. and gallant Friend cannot assert that the Acts were only meant to prevent some cruelty. They were meant to prevent all cruelty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have had an opportunity of considering this Amendment put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My ruling is that it comes within the scope of the Bill, and that accordingly it is in order.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, after the word "unlawful," to insert the words "except as hereinafter provided."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has decided to move this Amendment here, because it is quite impossible for me to accept it. The House will admit that I am the last man to bring forward a Bill on any false pretences. The object of this Bill is not to allow the Home Office to give certificates which mean practically nothing.

HON. MEMBERS
"Question!"

§ Sir F. BANBURY
That is my opinion. If the serried phalanx of doctors and my right hon. Friend, supported by other distinguished Members, are of 1632 opinion that the certificate is all right they are at perfect liberty later on to bring forward evidence to show that that is so, but in my opinion the issuing of certificates by the Home Office is not done with that care which should be given to those cases. If the Amendment is carried what will be its effect? At the present moment anyone can experiment on a dog of he obtains a licence from the Home Office and two certificates afterwards. All the hon. Gentleman does is to add another licence or certificate—I am not sure which.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
The hon. Baronet ought to be accurate. [HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] There are a licence, and a certificate, and a subsequent certificate and a third—