FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE (Hansard, 21 April 1986)

§ Mr. Mellor
I beg to move amendment No. 31 in page 13, line 32, leave out from 'as' to end of line 33 and insert
'the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Committee by the Secretary of State'. This is a significant amendment. It has always been our wish that the Animal Procedures Committee should be an independent body consisting of eminent people who are capable of offering advice to the Secretary of State, of their own volition taking action on aspects of the workings of the measure so as to be satisfied that it is working smoothly, and making reports on its deliberations to the House and to the wider public. It is crucial to that concept that the Animal Procedures Committee should not merely be invoked when the Secretary of State so wishes but should be able to initiate consideration of any matter that the Committee, acting together, believes is appropriate for it to look at. That is why the amendment states what it does, in particular using the word "determine" in the context of the committee's deliberations.

§ Mr. Corbett
I welcome what the Minister has just said, and the amendment, because it properly responds to the strong points made by many hon. Members in Committee and myself on the need to demonstrate and to specify that the Animal Procedures Committee is not the creature of the Secretary of State or the Home Office. The role and work of the Animal Procedures Committee, as we discussed earlier, is at the heart of the Bill. It is the Rolls-Royce version of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, because the Animal Procedures Committee has statutory parenthood and so a more independent life.
115 We have sought to establish that the Animal Procedures Committee could speak without waiting to be spoken to. In other words, it could off its own bat decide to offer advice to the Secretary of State without waiting for him to ask for it. That is an important point.
The amendment should now lay at rest the charge from some here and many outside that the Animal Procedures Committee is a toothless wonder; a body of yes men and women on the end of a fairly short leash. The amendment makes it clear that that is not so. The Animal Procedures Committee has an independent life and can be expected to make such use of that independence in terms of comment and advice as it sees fit.
Critics outside have said that the range of relations among experimenters is too cosy. The Animal Procedures Committee can, in that context, act as an irritant and speak out independently on matters of concern to it without waiting to be asked. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
We come now to amendment No. 32, with which it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

§ Mr. Hancock
In view of the point made at the end of the Committee stage on this amendment and the other two amendments tabled with it, there is no purpose in delaying the House. Therefore, I shall not move amendment No. 32.

§ Mr. Fry
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will note that amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 come from different parts of the House. By not moving amendment No. 32, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has left no opportunity for the House to discuss amendment No. 34 in my name or amendment No. 33.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak on his amendment?

§ Mr. Fry
Indeed.

§ Mr. Speaker
In that case, it would be for the convenience of the House if I allowed the hon. Gentleman to move amendment No. 34.

§ Mr. Fry
I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
`(1A) It shall be the duty of the Animal Procedures Committee to review, retrospectively, all licences granted in the category of substantial severity, and from time to time, to advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the reduction of animal suffering in animal experiments and the reduction of animal use.'. I do not intend to detain the House for long, but the RSPCA considers this to be a matter of considerable importance. It is in no way criticising the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee, but it is concerned about the fact that it needs to have the instruction that it shall from time to time go into the question of those licences that are granted in the category of substantial severity.
It is believed that the committee, as the Minister has laid out, has a great responsibility, but I want to return to the point that I made earlier. Yes, we do have to give it the widest discretion, but it is important that the Bill 116 should spell out the kind of duties that we expect it to perform. After all, that is the responsibility of this House and it is why we are here tonight.
10.15 pm
The Committee will comprise eminent persons with all sorts of experience, some from the animal lobby and some concerned not so much with animal welfare as with research. There will be a need to look at all licences granted in the substantial severity category, and I want an assurance that the closest consideration will be given to the question how the committee will be provided with sufficient information to make the decision—

§ Sir Dudley Smith
I have a certain amount of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, does he agree that those on the committee will be men and women of the highest distinction and, inevitably, busy people? Can we really expect them to become bogged down in reviews and approvals of licences when the expert inspectors will have already done their work?
Of course, there will be instances when it may be necessary to consult the committee, but people may shy away from serving on it if they think that they will be bogged down in the routine of checking licence applications.

§ Mr. Fry
I understand what my hon. Fiend is saying but refer him to an earlier amendment relating to the inspectorate. I do not in any way doubt the efficiency of the inspectorate, nor do I deny that the membership of the committee will comprise people of the highest calibre. I have been trying to explain that, with the large number of existing licences and the need for revision—especially those in the substantial severity category—even with the best will in the world 18 inspectors will have their work cut out.
I moved the amendment because I believe that there should be a clear injunction upon the committee to have an overall responsibility for licences in the substantial severity category—

§ Mr. Corbett
As I said two or three times in Committee, having established the committee and having confirmed its independence, we should be careful of the circumstances in which we lay specific duties on it—especially in view of the message that we received from the womb of that body yet to be born, that it would not carry out its duties over its shoulder, as it were.

§ Mr. Fry
I accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I intend to press the amendment to a vote. I believe that it is important that we should put on record what we expect of the committee.
There is a genuine fear that unless we do that, because the committee will have a great deal to do and many responsibilities, it may not embark upon what I consider to be a fundamental part of what should be its work.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to move the amendment. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.

§ Mr. Mellor
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) knows, it will be for the committee to determine what it wants to consider, and it will be perfectly free to do that. After all, that is what we have always wanted. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, we must not seek to rein in the committee and specify what it should 117 consider if it is our wish that it should be a properly independent watchdog committee that can report to the public on how the Act is working.
However, the Secretary of State will want to ask it to look back at the question of the substantial severity banding and how discretion has been exercised. In pursuing that investigation, the committee will be entitled to ask for such information as it wishes from the Home Office, or, indeed, anyone else. We shall, of course, give full co-operation. In my judgment, we now have a basis on which the Animal Procedures Committee can undertake its work responding to requests for advice from the Secretary of State and determining itself what other matters it wishes to examine. It has a duty on it, under clause 20(2), which provides: In its consideration of any matter the Committee shall have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific procedures. That is the balance it must help us to strike and plainly the issues set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough are crucial to achieving that goal. My hon. Friend made clear that he was raising the matter at the behest of the RSPCA and that the RSPCA had no quarrel with the committee. I should think not, since the scientific and legal advisers to the RSPCA are on the committee.

§ Mr. Fry
As I am satisfied by my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.