§ Mr. FryI beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 31, leave out from 'one' to end of line 34 and insert
'or more of the insepctors appointed under this Act, who shall consult an independent assessor or assessors. The inspectors may, in addition, consult the Animal Procedures Committee established by this Act.'.This amendment has been tabled on behalf of the RSPCA and raises a very important issue. I do not think that anyone doubts the intentions of my hon. Friend the Minister or the efficiency of the Home Office inspectorate. However, there is concern in certain quarters, especially in view of the existing number of licences, that the inspectors will have a very heavy work load.In Committee, my hon. Friend said that several thousand licences already existed, and presumably they will have to be checked before they are renewed. One point that concerns both me and the RSPCA is whether there are sufficient inspectors, whether they can cover especially severe experiments and whether, even with all their wisdom and experience, they are always sufficiently experienced to deal with every kind of application.
I ask that because research becomes ever more sophisticated. Some of us believe that the inspectorate needs a backstop—not that under the Bill they should be allowed to consult other inspectors, but that they should actually be encouraged to do so because the other inspectors, in turn, could consult an independent assessor or assessors.
I strongly believe that, if the Bill is to be successful, it will require a great deal from the Home Office inspectors. They will have a real responsibility to ensure that the Bill achieves its main objective, which is to reduce animal pain and suffering. Therefore, they will require the maximum assistance.
I accept that to ask the advisory committee to look at all the applications probably means that it will be bogged down in paper work. As we have already said, there are many matters for that body, and new thinking is a particular direction in which we hope it will move. I accept the Government's argument, both in another place and in Committee, that the advisory committee is not the body to be responsible in this instance. However, I believe that it could and should be consulted, and it is important that it is in a position to be consulted.
In putting forward the amendment, the RSPCA suggested that the inspectorate, at an early opportunity after enactment of the Bill, should set up an expert panel spanning a broad range of disciplines, and including a statistician. It should be set up in consultation with the Animal Procedures Committee and be available for consultation on the possible refinement of project licence applications. Members of the panel should be consulted in a large proportion of cases, and on most of the cases involving substantial severity.
100 I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will clearly spell out the way in which he envisages the inspectorate being able to cope. I hope, too, that he will inform the House how he views the task of the inspectorate, especially in reviewing the very large number of existing licences and on the question of how future licences will be reviewed so that—I say this with all sincerity—because of the amount of work that the inspectorate will have and, perhaps, because of a lack of knowledge, there will be no suspicion of any rubber-stamping of future licence applications.
§ Mr. CorbettI know that the Minister will have spotted one important point relating to the amendment. It is true, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, that, increasingly, research is becoming more and more sophisticated and refined, and I welcome that. It is rather like looking at the situation as though it were a funnel. It is to be hoped that we are at the narrow end rather than the wide end. In other words, we expect research, where possible, to be more specifically targeted and precise.
I mean to cast no reflection at all on the confidence or integrity of individual inspectors or the inspectorate as a whole. I know that an ambition of the enlarged inspectorate is to develop individual skills, but I point out that they will be busy men and, I hope, women. Having regard to what I have said about the refinement of research in the area—and I hope that the Minister can reassure us on this point—it may be expecting too much, in the case of some of the narrowly targeted project applications to which I have referred, that on every occasion inspectors will have the required knowledge.
Common sense clearly dictates that, when an individual inspector does not have the knowledge, he should be entirely free to consult his colleagues. Occasionally, it could happen that among his colleagues a certain piece of specialised knowledge and experience is missing. Again, logically, I expect that there will be no let or hindrance in those circumstances to prevent an inspector—and the number of cases of this type are likely to be fewer than the fingers on one hand—from contacting recognised experts in the field and taking such advice as is offered. If that happens, it will be in the spirit of this amendment.
§ Mr. MellorAs always, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has been most helpful, and what he says is right. I point out to the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that the measure contains a transitional arrangement so that over the years everyone with an existing licence will be brought within the framework of the legislation, and the project licensing system will become a twin pillar with the personal licensing system, which is the only one of the two systems that presently exists. We recognise that a greater strain will be imposed on the inspectorate, and that is why, as I have said, we are in the process of recruiting three more officers to increase the number from 15 to 18, with another three in the pipeline and possibly more, if required.
Each officer has to be a doctor or veterinarian. It is hoped that, as well as being able, by virtue of their expertise, to deal with their own duties in a region, within the inspectorate, there will be individual expertise, so that inspectors might consult each other. It is important to create an atmosphere in which no one suggests that other links are in this chain because we are not confident about 101 one link, but that it is understood that they are all there to try to ensure that the sophisticated judgment that has to be made on each application can be made and that, however complicated the project might be, a proper and expert, not prejudiced, judgment can be made.
That is why it has always been part of the conception of the Bill, as I have argued throughout, that, where there is any doubt or difficulty, we should be capable of referring matters to assessors who are themselves experts in particular fields. We also desire that the Animal Procedures Committee should have among its membership expert and qualified people who are able to join with their colleagues in ensuring that responsibilities are discharged properly and to do what the advisory committee already does, which is to consider for the Secretary of State especially difficult applications. We do not want the committee to be overburdened with difficult work. But at present it is there to do what the Secretary of State asks it to do. If the House accepts a later amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the new Animal Procedures Committee will determine what it should do. That will be a further safeguard.
Most applications will be able to be dealt with by the inspectorate. The inspector will act alone, consult the deputy and chief inspectors, or consult the expert within the inspectorate. The inspector should feel that it is a sign of strength of the arrangements that when he needs an assessor he is able to refer to one, and not an admission of failure on his part. If the Animal Procedures Committee or anyone else were to feel that judgments were being made too often without assessors, it would be open to the APC or to others to come to that conclusion.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingbrough not to pursue the argument that the inspector must consult an assessor on every application. We are anxious that resources should not be tied up in ensuring that the unnecessary is done. Many applications will be straightforward and an experienced inspector will be able to decide them himself. I suspect that only a minority will be of such complexity that the inspectors will need to go outside their own ranks. The spirit that we wish to engender is that inspectors will consult whenever they feel doubt, and that is the way that we approach the task.
It may be of interest to the House to know that the scientific adviser to the RSPCA, who is a member of the advisory committee and who will be appointed to the APC, came to see me the other day. I said that part of the start of the relationship between the new APC and the inspectorate will be the establishment of an early meeting so that each body can get together to talk about these issues and how they should work together. These matters can best be dealt with in the spirit of co-operation rather than compulsion.
This has been a useful and helpful debate and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is sufficiently reassured not to pursue the amendment.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. FryI have listened most carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister and I accept the assurances that he has given. The proof of what he has said, however, will not 102 be known until the Bill becomes an Act and has been in operation for some time. I am sure that Members of this place and of organisations such as the RSPCA will be watching carefully to ensure that what he has had to say comes into effect. I accept my hon. Friend's good intentions and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the House to forgive me for inserting a point of order on a different subject, but it is one that calls for a statement this evening, on information that has come from the Fairford base in Gloucestershire. On 14 April, at column 579, I raised with the House the need last month for a statement to be made on what was happening in relation to Libya. At 11.15 pm that night I was telephoned by the same sources, which I am prepared to give to the authorities of the House, and told that they were greatly concerned that air tankers had taken off in most unusual circumstances from Fairford. That was last Monday, before the strike against Libya.
The same sources have just telephoned to say that they believe that the United States Government this evening have announced that together with European allies, and possibly Canadians, a major exercise is being announced called Operation Elderforest. This involves 100 F111s and in-flight refuelling facilities taking part in an exercise in conjunction with American naval forces off the coast of Libya. This will involve the American carrier force. As last Monday's sources turned out to be too tragically accurate, this Monday may I ask, through the usual channels, whether it will be possible to have a Government statement on these sinister developments?
§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard this evening on the six o'clock news that the United States Government had rightly announced that tomorrow a number of their fighter aircraft would be used in a major NATO exercise from this country. So that people would not be alarmed, following recent events, the United States Government had seen fit to announce that this exercise would take place. They did not want people near the bases to be disturbed by the takeoff of the aircraft.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) realise that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to the usual channels. They are represented in the Chamber, and no doubt will have heard the hon. Member's comments.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, we shall pursue the matter through the usual channels. Regardless of any announcement, I believe that the news from Fairford means that hon. Members should be able to have an input into these events rather than hold an inquest afterwards.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI understand what the hon. Member says, but this is not a matter for the Chair. My job is to ensure that we proceed with the business of the day, and we must now do so.