HC Deb 20 July 1973 vol 860 cc1103-8
Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South-West)

I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning to second ' the' in line 14 and insert: 'The Secretary of State shall not issue a licence if he is satisfied that'. I do so briefly because I have no intention of attempting to talk the Bill out. I propose the amendment because I have severe reservations about the Bill as it stands. It imposes a quite unfair burden upon the experimenter. It would enable the Secretary of State to issue a licence to the experimenter and at the same time to say to him, "On your head be it if you do anything which brings you in conflict with the law" —as set out in the Bill. He would be able to say, "I have the power as Secretary of State to prohibit the remedy coming into operation and prohibit your being prosecuted for any offence you might commit but I cannot

sidered at a later stage if the Bill goes to another place.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 2.

say in advance in what circumstances I might be prepared to use that power of mine."

So we have a system of licensing which is designed to provide some safeguard for the type of experiment which is conducted but we are making holes in the system by making the experimenter directly responsible for this particularly important and sensitive issue.

It was argued on Second Reading and in Committee that the Secretary of State's fiat required for prosecution is an adequate defence, but there is no proposal in the Bill that the Secretary of State should refuse his permission if he is satisfied that the purpose of the experiment could be achieved by other means. Those engaged in this work fear that they would be subject to the danger of prosecution, and I do not think it is right, without an advance laying down of the criteria upon which the Secretary of State would operate his fiat, to rely upon that fear for that purpose. Therefore I would prefer that the burden should lie upon the Secretary of State to say on issuing the licence the purpose for which the licence is issued is one for which there are no alternative methods of experiment available.

It is not a matter which should go to the courts, whether a summary court or Crown court. It is not the sort of thing which can be uniformly decided by the courts. It is of its nature more of an executive decision.

I understand that there are difficulties on this score in that the present practice is to license experimenters and not experiments. I confess that I did not take that point fully into account, and if there is an alternative method of achieving the object I have briefly described I would gladly withdraw my amendment and go for some alternative which is more suitable.

Mr. Lane

Although I appreciate the point of the amendment and agree with the objects that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) is after, it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I ought perhaps to have said that it will be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 2 in page 1, line 12, leave out: 'it shall be a condition of every such licence' and insert: 'the Secretary of State may if he deems it expedient attach to any such licence a condition'.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan (Reading)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was your wish that we might speak on Amendment No. 2 before concluding Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes. That is perfectly right.

Mr. Lane

I will be brief. There is a flaw in the wording of the amendment which would make the whole Bill meaningless and ineffectual in meeting its target in both framework and language.

Section 8 of the 1876 Act deals with the licensing power of the Home Secretary. The licensing is done in terms of persons. Licences are given to persons; they are not given for particular experiments. There is no mention in Section 8 of licensing experiments. The reference is to licensing a person to perform experiments under the Act. If we were to amend the clause in the way suggested it would not refer to anything in Section 8 of the main Act. Therefore it would be meaningless. Accepting the amendment would add to Section 8 of the main Act a wholly ineffectual provision. That is why I said that it would make the Bill miss its target. I mention that now so that the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the House may realise that there is this basic flaw in the amendment, however much we may sympathise with the purpose behind it.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

I do not wish to talk the Bill out, but, having been a Member of this House for some years, I sense that we shall not reach a decision upon it. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will allow me to make a point which I think is fundamental to the whole Bill.

The amendment does not get us out of the basic problem of how a decision is to be reached, whether the alternative method is right or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) brings the decision forward—before the granting of the licence—instead of leaving it where it now is so that the Secretary of State has to decide whether to allow a prosecution. Whenever this decision has to be taken, it cannot in practice be taken without imposing undue delay and discouragement on vital research work. I have reached this conclusion with great reluctance.

I appreciate the objective of the Bill. Those who promote it are sincere and have done their best, within the limits of the Bill, to protect the rights of vital research. However, the amendment would lay on the Secretary of State, if it were practicable, a wholly inappropriate and impossible decision to make.

I will illustrate what I mean by a quotation from one of many letters that I have received from scientists. This shows how in practice the operation of the Bill, though it is not intended to do so, would delay and discourage research. Dr. Lewis, of CIBA, writes: …if the amendment was passed, one must ask who would be the ultimate authority to decide whether or not 'the purpose of the experiment can be achieved by alternative means not involving an experiment on a living animal'. The quality testing of one of our products, Synacthen, illustrates one difficulty which would arise as a result of the amendment. I was a member of the Biological Products Committee which was responsible for formulating the BP monograph for this product which laid down the tests considered necessary to ensure its safety and efficacy. The Company did not want to include a bioassay which involved many animals because their experts felt that the alternative chemical tests were adequate. However, the Committee finally decided that a bioassay was necessary and insisted that the product be tested on animals. This was a difficult decision to reach and took some two or three years of negotiation between highly qualified specialists". That decision is one example of the difficulties of the Bill. The question is not whether one supports the Bill. It is a matter of judgment whether, administratively, the operation of the Bill would result in undue delay in and discouragement from undertaking vitally needed medical research. With the greatest possible reluctance I come to the conclusion that it would, and I therefore question whether my hon. Friend's amendment, by having the decision made earlier, would remove the vital defect of the Bill.

Dr. Vaughan

I support the motives behind the Bill and the purpose of the amendment. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you wish us to take Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. May I speak briefly to Amendment No. 1 and then go on to propose my Amendment No. 2?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

That is not my wish. It is the will of the House.

Dr. Vaughan

I shall accept that as the wish of the House.

I have to declare a special interest in the Bill, in that I am a serving member of the Medical Research Council. My hon. Friend explained that there is a legal fallacy in Amendment No. 1 in that in the end it would make the framework of the Bill and the detailed application of the clause meaningless. I implore the House not to rush into any legislation in this complicated matter that would be unworkable.

Turning to the amendment in my name, as the Bill is phrased it would apply the condition of seeking an alternative means in any experiment to every licence. It is not clear who should decide whether the purpose of the experiment can be achieved by alternative means not involving a living animal, and that is the fallacy that is worrying us all. My amendment would remove the requirement that every licence would automatically be made subject to the new condition. Instead, it would rest with the Secretary of State to impose the condition only where he considered it expedient to do so.

It may be argued that that would weaken the Bill, but many of those who support the measure have acknowledged that no alternative method exists for many experiments. Moreover, I suggest that the supporters of the Bill have argued that its principal purpose is to encourage experimenters to satisfy themselves by diligent inquiry that an alternative method is not available before undertaking animal experiments.

If the Bill were amended in the way that I propose, the Secretary of State would be empowered to impose this condition in any case that he thought appropriate. For example, if he had reason to believe that the licensee was conducting animal experiments unnecessarily he could impose a condition, or where it seemed to him that there was a satisfactory alternative, again he could impose a condition.

I suggest to the House that the very existence of this power specifically spelled out in the Bill would have the effect of making every licensee look very carefully into the matter before undertaking animal experiments and it would have the additional advantage of removing entirely the shadow of prosecution for carrying out an unlawful experiment.

I do not think that the Secretary of State should have this power without being able to call on a panel of specialists working in the field, and it is for that reason that we have put down a list of organisations which would nominate people to sit on an advisory panel for the Secretary of State. I too have had a large number of letters, most in favour of this Bill. I do not want anyone to—

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

The hon. Gentleman and I have a vested interest to declare on this—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Further consideration what day? No instruction.

Back to