PERSONAL LICENCES (Hansard, 21 April 1986)

§ Mr. Mellor
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'qualifications' and insert `biological or other relevant qualifications and of the'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

§ Mr. Mellor
This is the first of a series of Government amendments which deal with commitments and undertakings that I gave in Committee.
The aim of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a clear suggestion that the most essentially relevant qualification for those who will hold personal licences is a scientific biological one. However, it makes it clear that other qualifications may be relevant and that we should be cautious of suggesting that there are two classes of people—those with biological qualifications and those with other qualifications—and that the latter group is in a lower position than the former.
There would be difficulties if we sought to establish two orders of qualification. A person may have a qualification in biochemistry. However, a degree in biochemistry can be obtained without any contact with animals. Therefore, does the possession of that biological qualification make that person better qualified than someone without that so-called biological qualification?
Those who discovered DNA did not have biological qualifications and nor did the Curies. We are concerned not with someone's specific qualifications but with their skills. The project licensing system does not consider qualifications which a number of people obtained 20 years ago. That is not greatly relevant in a judgment of their abilities. I am proud to be a BA honours graduate of Cambridge university. However, that is not the primary qualification on which I am judged as a Member of this House.
Personal licensees are allowed to carry out only tasks for which they are deemed suitable and competent. The project licensing system ensures that only work which is approved may be carried out. That is why I hope that the House will accept that the clarification that I undertook to give is contained in amendment No. 3.
The other amendments seek to go further than this debate, but perhaps I may be allowed a pre-emptive bite. They do not advance the difficult judgment that has to be made concerning the experience of the individual when it falls for him to be assessed.
To try to establish classes of qualification based on the assumption that a biological qualification is either always necessary or somehow better than any other is invalid. Each question has to be tested against the individual's merit. We provide the system in project licensing where that can best be done.

§ Mr. Fry
I think that we can dispose of this matter fairly quickly. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, in Committee some of us were troubled because certain experiments were carried out by people without any knowledge of biology, despite the fact that such 94 knowledge was necessary. We cited the example of physicists irradiating animals to death, and I know that my hon. Friend disapproves of that as much as I do.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that, if some biological understanding is necessary, there should be supervision by a competent biologist? If he cannot put that on the face of the Bill, will he agree to include it in the Department's guidelines?

§ Mr. Mellor
Under the personal licensing system no one will be licensed to carry out something that he cannot do. One of the prime ways of discovering whether he can do it is to see what qualifications he has. Under the project licensing system a range of people might need to work on a complicated project. The important thing is to ensure that where the project goes wider than the individual's speciality there is someone who can take an overview, who is appropriately qualified by virtue of his experience or paper qualifications, and who is entrusted with that work. It is key to the project licensing system that that sort of judgment should be made. There would be no purpose in having the system if we were not confident that that could be done. If it was not done, the whole system would be pointless.