PROTECTED ANIMALS (Hansard, 21 April 1986)

§ Mr. Livsey
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert 'and invertebrates of the phylum mollusca, class cephalopoda'. This group includes the octopus family. It is scientifically known as an intelligent group of animals that are experimented upon and that, perhaps, suffer from experimentation. The amendment is in line with the draft EEC directive.
During the Committee proceedings the Minister said that he had an open mind on the subject. These animals have a complex nervous system. Apparently there is no objection by Ministers or officials in the Home Office to an amendment of this kind that covers these animals. The Minister said that he would seek more information on the matter. The amendment applies to octopi and to the giant squid that are used for neuro-physiological experiments. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider including in the Bill this class of animals.

§ Mr. Mellor
As I explained in Committee, if and when the Animal Procedures Committee advises me to do so, I shall consider the matter, but not before.

§ Mr. Livsey
I accept what the Minister said, but when he has heard from the Animal Procedures Committee I hope that there will be a statement on the subject.

§ Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the danger is that this sovereign Parliament that is supposed to be deciding what the law should be is deferring a number of decisions to an advisory committee? The hon. Gentleman moved this amendment in Committee, and some of my hon. Friends and I supported him. I am trying to support him again this evening. Does he accept that decisions on the details of the law are the responsibility not of an advisory committee but of this House?

§ Mr. Livsey
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has made a good point. I have listened to what the Minister has said and I have not got a closed mind on the matter. I hope more evidence will be forthcoming.

§ Mr. Mellor
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), may I say that we are in no sense asking the House to allow some advisory committee to take decisions for us. It is a difficult technical question. We do not know the capacity of the species to feel pain. With the greatest respect, a debate between my hon. Friend and myself about the matter would not be worthwhile as it would not be a well informed debate. There is no shame in the House admitting that we are not experts. We have made arrangements for experts to advise us.
Successive Governments have done this and it started with the Littlewood committee. The present Government have twice asked the advisory committee to look at the point and both times it has answered in the negative. I do not think that I would be justified in throwing that advice back in the committee's face. For that reason I made it clear in Committee—I wish to amplify that in reply to my hon. Friend—that I remain of the view that when a specialist body, established by statute to consider these matters, offers positive advice—I suspect that this 92 would apply to anyone who comes after me—I would want to accept such advice. Until that time it would be prejudice on my part, one way or the other, if I decided on a whim that I did not think a case had been made out. There is no technical basis for saying that.

§ Mr. Corbett
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is correct. The House is charged with the duty of making legislation but against that—I do not wish to trespass on later debates—we attach great store by the powers and the functions of the Animal Procedures Committee. The Minister and the Secretary of State have put together a body of people whom we all hope will be able to carry out well the functions which, under the Bill, will rest with them.
I am not proposing that we duck out of this but it is right to avoid—we are prone to do this in the House sometimes—rushing headlong into a very technical area. We sympathise with the point being made, but I believe it would be right to leave this matter to the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee. In due course, if the Minister feels that the case has been made, one of the advantages of the Bill is that changes can be made by order. Such changes are subject to debate and decision in the House. In this case I believe that is the right way to proceed.

§ Mr. Fry
In response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), may I say that I am not attacking the advisory committee, or the excellent people who are its members. Perhaps, alas, there is insufficient definition in the Bill as to what the committee should be doing and what its powers are. I am in favour of giving people a fair degree of latitude but nevertheless the responsibility, the buck, stops here in the House and later it will stop with the Secretary of State.
I am perturbed by a matter raised by the Minister in a letter to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) dated 18 April in which he said: There is no doubt in my mind that some of the cephalopods are highly organised and behaviourally sophisticated creatures, but there has yet been no adequate demonstration of their capacity to experience pain or other forms of suffering, in the way that we understand these concepts in respect of vertebrates. I am making a plea on behalf of creatures about which we are insufficiently aware. It does seem very tenuous to justify any kind of experiment on the grounds that we do not know the pain that that particular creature will suffer. That point should be stressed during this debate.
I sincerely hope that the advisory committee will look at this matter. I hope that one of the first things it will do will be to instigate proper research so that the answer to the question of how much pain the creature will suffer—a relevant question—is resolved as soon as possible.

§ Sir Gerard Vaughan (Reading, East)
Both the octopus and the squid have highly developed, complicated nervous systems. For that reason they are frequently studied, especially regarding problems of neurophysiology.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was right to table the amendment. However, the Minister is equally right in saying that it is a technical problem which ought to be considered by the Animal Procedures Committee. The strength of the Bill lies in the committee, which will be independent scientifically to study these problems. The general view in the House is that we should avoid unnecessary experimentation.

§ Mr. Livsey
I agree matter. As a result of what to withdraw the amendment.