Lords Sitting of 18 July 1957

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

ISSUE OF DISTINCTIVE STAMPS
2.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make as a corollary to their announcement on July 18, 1956, that distinctive stamps were to be issued in certain denominations for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, a good deal of progress has been made with these stamps but there is still a lot of work to be done on them and my right honourable friend the Postmaster General cannot yet say exactly when they are likely to be issued.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him if he would be so kind as to ask his right honourable friend the Postmaster General whether he would review the suggestion of an issue of small low-value pictorial stamps, which I have advocated in your Lordships' House and which, in the opinion of many well qualified to judge, would add to the revenue and in the opinion of the tourist industry, would increase the number of tourists to this country?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Viscount's Question can be strictly construed as a corollary to the announcement of last July. At the same time, as I have said before, my right honourable friend's mind is a
1332
receptive and questing one and I shall certainly be pleased to ask him what the noble Viscount requested.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord.

DEPRECIATION OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they intend to take any steps to stop the serious decline in the market value of Government securities which is having a disastrous effect upon the capital invested by small investors and others as savings, and is resulting in such securities becoming unstable and unsuitable for trustee investment.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord will probably agree that the market value of Government securities is not a matter which can be easily isolated from other and more general economic questions which do not readily lend themselves to discussion by way of Parliamentary Question and Answer. In reply to similar Questions in another place, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he observes the fluctuations of the market but is not prepared to forecast developments. I do not think that it would be proper for me to add to this this afternoon, except to say that I do not endorse the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord from the movement of gilt-edged prices in the recent past.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, I think that it is most unsatisfactory. I am very much surprised that Her Majesty's Government are not concerned about the depreciation of the capital value of gilt-edged securities, which is having a serious effect upon many trustees and others who have money to invest or securities to sell. I was hoping, therefore, to have a better reply. As a final question, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government recommend to trustees that at this time

1333
they should invest in gilt-edged securities?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, I do not accept that the Government are not concerned about these matters, nor has anything I have said justified that remark. As regards the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks, it is not, I think, my function to give by way of a supplementary answer advice on investments to trustees or to anybody else.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as an ordinary person and no expert, I should have thought that if one sees Consols at 48, that would not be too bad an investment for trustees. I would ask the noble and learned viscount this question: Is not this very persistent low level of certain Government securities due to the general inflationary trend, the depreciation in the value of money? When this sort of question is raised, have not the Government taken into consideration the fact that the controls they have so far exercised seem to be failing to deal with inflation and that there is urgent need for some specific attention to be given to the matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Viscount's remarks, I agree. Indeed, I think it was part of my original answer that the Question on the Order Paper bears an obvious relation to general economic considerations such as that which has been moving the noble Viscount. I am not sure that I can recollect the second part of the question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I suggested that the persistent low level of Government securities seems to indicate that the controls which they have exercised to try to deal with the matter seem incapable of dealing with it and it is something to which the Government should give their urgent attention.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should not be prepared to accept the first part of the noble Viscount's sentence. I think that the matter is receiving urgent attention. I was venturing to suggest that this was just the sort of subject which could better be dealt with by
1334
debate than by an exchange of Questions and Answers.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that this is a type of question which should be dealt with by an investment stockbroker?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should certainly be content to consult one in such circumstances.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1957
2.12 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFATRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I beg to move the motion for an Humble Address to Her Majesty standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Order was considered by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House on June 4. When the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, presented the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, to your Lordships' House on July 25, 1956, which Order was subsequently passed by your Lordships, he foreshadowed that this further Order, which deals with the income tax exemptions of the individual members of the staff of the Tin Council, would have to be presented at some later date, since the original Order dealt only with the International Tin Council as a corporate body. As your Lordships know the headquarters of the Tin Council is situated in London. Her Majesty's Government see advantage in this.
This new Order is very limited in scope It is limited to the salaries of the executives of the Council. Furthermore, it does not apply to the British employees of the Council. The Council consists of 13 executives, of which 7 are British. Therefore this Order concerns only 6 people in all, though in certain circumstances this

1335
number might vary slightly one way or the other. This Order, relieving the non-British employees of the Tin Council of income tax on their salaries, is, in fact, of no personal benefit to these employees, since their salaries are already expressed as so much "net after tax". What it does mean is that by refraining from imposing income tax on foreign members of the staff Her Majesty's Government will not be recovering part of their own contribution to the Council's Administrative Account. I would remind your Lordships that this is a privilege granted also to the European Coal and Steel Community. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 22nd May.—(The Earl of Gosford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) ORDER, 1957
2.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, these two Orders are closely connected and, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with them together. The purpose of the Orders is to amend and, since there have been three Amendments already to each, to consolidate Orders which are at present in force under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The one levy is for promotion of exports of the wool industry's products and the other for scientific research into the technical problems of the industry. The levies are raised in part from suppliers of wool and in part from processors of wool. In each case, the payments are based upon the quantity of wool supplied or consumed or on the number of persons employed during a defined six months' period. In order to avoid undue clerical labour in computing payments
1336
which would prove to be insignificant in amount, there are exemptions for suppliers and for users of very small quantities of wool.
The levy for export promotion, instituted in August, 1950, was designed to produce some £100,000 to £120,000 a year: the annual yield has been, in fact, about £115,000. The amended rates now proposed would, it is expected, produce a total of some £200,000 a year. When the scientific research levy was instituted in October, 1950, it was expected to produce some £100,000 to £120,000 a year and the increased payments introduced in 1952 increased the annual yield to some £155,000. The amended rates now proposed would, it is expected, produce a total of some £200,000 a year: that is, some £400,000 a year for the two levies together.
All the necessary consultations with bodies concerned have been carried out. That the industry in general values the work paid for from the two levies and desires that work to be continued and extended is borne out by the fact that the increased rates, which are the main object of these draft Orders, have been specifically requested by the principal organisation in the industry representing the great majority of the employers, the Wool Textile Delegation. They have also been warmly supported by the trade unions in the industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 4th of June be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER, 1957
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 4th of June, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS
2.19 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING rose to draw attention to the present situation regarding painful experiments on animals; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will institute an inquiry with a view to repairing the loopholes in the existing law and thereafter ensure by adequate inspection that the law is properly enforced; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now nearly five years since I last spoke in this House on the subject of painful experiments on animals. Since that time the situation has scarcely altered, except that the annual number of experiments has risen from 1¾ million to 2½ million. Outwardly it would seem that my efforts were completely without effect, but such an assumption would not be altogether accurate. My speech was printed and circulated fairly widely in this country, and during the last six months I have received letters from Sweden and Austria telling me that it has been translated into Swedish and German, and has been circulated in Sweden, Germany and Austria. So it will be seen that often what is said in this House penetrates far beyond its walls. At any rate, it encourages me to bring the salient facts of the subject again to the notice of your Lordships. I do not wish to repeat my previous speech, but for the benefit of those of your Lordships who did not hear it I must briefly recapitulate some of the facts.
I must begin by making my own position perfectly clear. I firmly believe that painful experiments on animals are morally wrong, and that it is basically immoral to do evil in order that good may come—even if it were proved that mankind benefits from the suffering inflicted on animals. I further believe that, in the vast majority of cases, mankind does not so benefit, and that the results of vivisection are, in fact, misleading and harmful. However that may be, I realise that to-day it would be quite useless to ask that the practice of vivisection should be immediately abolished—that windmill is at present beyond the reach of my lance. But I am asking that some defects of the present law may be remedied, and that the law, as amended, should be properly enforced.
The first Royal Commission on Vivisection was followed in 1876 by a Bill called the Cruelty to Animals Bill. This Bill was humane in intention and in drafting. Its most important provision was that no potentially painful experiment should be carried out on animals without an anæsthetic, and that if an animal was likely to awake into a state of severe pain it should be destroyed while still unconscious. The Bill prohibited absolutely the performance of painful experiments on dogs, cats and the horse family. I have spoken of "the Bill", because during its passage through Parliament it was considerably modified. Various provisions were introduced which enabled almost every item in the Bill to be evaded. Seven different certificates were introduced, under which experiments could be performed without anæsthetics. For example, the animal need not be killed before recovering consciousness; and experiments without anæsthetics might be performed on dogs, cats and horses. All these certificates could be given if it was claimed that the object of the experiment would otherwise be frustrated. At a later date, after another Inquiry, terminating in 1910, the so-called "pain" clauses were introduced. These stipulated that if, during any of these experiments, the animal appeared to be suffering pain which was severe and/or likely to endure, and if the main result of the experiment had been achieved, then the animal should at once be painlessly killed. This, of course, was a futile provision, because, apart from the vivisector himself, there was no judge as to the intensity of the pain or its probable duration.
It was also laid down in the Amendments which were made to the law at that time that if it appeared to an inspector that an animal was suffering severe pain he might order it to be killed forthwith. That, too, was a dead letter, for there is no recorded case of any inspector ever having given such a direction. Nor, indeed, has any prosecution ever been carried out against any vivisector since the passing of the Act in 1876. It is true that offenders are occasionally admonished and warned, but that is generally owing to some irregularity in the certificates which they hold; and no penalty is attached to such warning or admonition.
Even if inspectors were anxious to carry out the spirit of the Act and to protect animals from pain, they would have a hopeless task. As I have said, there are now about 2½ million experiments performed every year in about 520 laboratories. To guard against breaches of the law in these 2½ million experiments there are no more than five inspectors—that is to say, each inspector has an average of 500,000 experiments to supervise in a year, and 100 laboratories to visit. Surely, my Lords, I have said enough to show that the law is riddled with loopholes, and that the whole inspection system is a hollow sham, maintained to throw dust in the eyes of critics and to salve the conscience of the apathetic.
There is another aspect of the present law which urgently demands attention. I refer to the absence of any adequate definition of what constitutes an anæsthetic. A true anæsthetic causes loss of all consciousness, sensation or feeling; and this was undoubtedly the sense in which the word was intended to be interpreted by the original Act. But in the Lancet, in the British Medical Journal and other professional publications, operations are described which have been performed under drugs that are not true anæsthetics at all. For instance, dial anæsthesia was used at Cambridge University during the tearing out of the eyes of cats. Dial is defined as a "sedative and hypnotic for nervous insomnia and to induce narcosis in conditions of severe agitation." Amytal was used when dogs had their abdomens cut open and horse serum injected to produce shock. Amytal is defined as a sedative and hypnotic and as a preliminary to surgical anæsthesia. Nembutal was used during the smashing of cats' legs with eighty to a hundred blows of a hammer. Nembutal is described as a basal narcotic in conjunction with inhalation anæsthesia. It is chosen for its brief duration of action. In this case it was administered one hour before the operation and so those cats had no palliative at all to their pain. Those experiments were carried out in Edinburgh.
Urethane is a mild hypnotic which produces normal sleep without after-effects. This was used instead of an anæsthetic during an experiment involving the repeated dropping of a metal rod on to the
1340
thighs of small rodents extended on a heavy anvil. That experiment was done at Oxford. Then there is the drug known as curare. That was at one time fairly extensively used in this country and is extensively used abroad to-day. It is not an anæsthetic at all; it is a paralysant which paralyses the animal so that it cannot struggle or cry out but it is left with all its sensations unimpaired. I am glad to say that the use of curare as an anæsthetic is forbidden in this country. At the same time, it is permitted in conjunction with another anæsthetic and, when it is used in conjunction with these so-called anæsthetics of which I have been talking, then you get paralysis of the animal and no dulling of the pain. These cases are all quoted from accounts written in the medical and physiological Press by vivisectors themselves.
When one asks oneself what goes on behind the closed doors of laboratories to which the public has no access, it is only reasonable to suppose that the most shocking experiments never appear at all in print to which the public has access. For instance, it is very rarely that painful experiments on dogs are reported at all, and yet there is a lively trade in dogs for vivisection laboratories. The Home Office return for 1955 records that there were 3,892 experiments on dogs, more than half of them without anæsthetics. Of course, it is pure sentimentality to claim for dogs, cats and horses an immunity from pain which is denied to other animals. All warm-blooded animals feel pain and all are equally entitled to protection. As I say, we have normally no means of knowing what goes on behind the closed doors of laboratories, but now and again the veil is lifted.
A London doctor told me that he read the speech which I made in this House in 1952 and he refused to believe that such things went on in this country. However, he was a fair-minded man and, being in a position to do so, he decided to find out for himself. He went first to Oxford where he had done some of his medical training, and there he found seven research laboratories in full blast. By virtue of his profession, he was able to obtain access to them and he found that my speech, so far from being an exaggeration, was an under-statement. He is now an ardent worker in the cause of anti-vivisection. What particularly struck

1341
him was the callous attitude of people who were otherwise normal, decent members of society; and also the absolute uselessness of some of the experiments. For instance, he found a young fellow engaged in the process of what is called "Siamesing" rats; that is to say, operating on them so that they were joined together and shared certain of their organs in common. He said to the young man: "What on earth can be the use of this experiment to humanity?" The answer was: "I do not know what good it is going to do to humanity, but I know what good it is going to do to me. It is going to get me my degree."
Another more or less accidental light was thrown on laboratory practices by a Sunday paper on April 14 of this year, under the heading "A Room of Horror". It gave an account of what a window-cleaner had seen during the course of his duties at the Birmingham University Medical School. I asked the editor of the paper if he would be kind enough to give me the name and address of the window cleaner as I wished to verify the story. This he kindly gave me, but was otherwise reticent. I was told afterwards that he had been threatened with legal action. The window-cleaner corroborated what had appeared in the paper. He said that he had seen small animals fastened to the table with pins. He had seen yelping dogs crawling about the floor with tubes sticking out of them, he had seen three dogs lying on the ground trying to catch drops of water from a dripping tap, and he had seen a live rabbit thrown into an incinerator by a girl student. The window-cleaner said that such sights had been commonplace for some years He had hesitated to do anything about it because he was afraid that his firm would lose the contract and that his mates would lose their jobs. But at last he could stand it no more.
Noble Lords may remember the great outcry in the Press about a year ago, when 300 monkeys were suffocated at London Airport in an ill-ventilated B.O.A.C. van. This incident supplies an excellent example of the illogical and sentimental approach of the British public, led by their Press, to the subject of the suffering of animals. The Times of India stated on September 6, 1955, that India's annual export of monkeys was a quarter of a million, and that more than half of that number came through London Airport.
1342
I do not attempt to excuse the callousness or the carelessness of the airline in handling these poor creatures, but where is our sense of proportion? Those 300 were the lucky monkeys: they experienced only about fifteen minutes of slow suffocation.
What happened to the others? Here are some of their experiences—the list is not exhaustive: exposure to radioactive material, prison gases, blast from high explosives, cosmic rays in plastic balloons, fifteen to twenty miles above the earth; brain operation, with or with anæsthetics; epilepsy induced by injections into the brain; projection into space in rockets; the production of cancer, dropsy, eye diseases, ulcers, guinea worm, infestation, polio, pneumonia, rheumatism, severe shock from fatigue or injury, sunstroke, the displacement of organs by operation; infection with anthrax, mumps, malaria, rabies, syphilis and yellow fever; and the testing of various toxic drugs. Yet about all this there is no newspaper outcry. We know a certain amount about what goes on at Porton in the way of subjecting animals to the fearful effects of various poison gases. We know a good deal less about what goes on at Harwell, where animals are subjected to various forms of radiation arising from the breaking down or building up of atomic nuclei.
Lastly, very little information is available concerning the vast modern trade in animal life and suffering involved in the wholesale manufacture and testing by big animal firms of so-called "therapeutic substances". Thousands of animal lives are expended every week in the manufacture of these drugs, and thousands more in their testing. There has never been any inquiry into the details of this trade; in fact, there has been no public inquiry of any sort into vivisection and its kindred questions for nearly fifty years.
I hope it will be agreed that I have established a case that the law is seriously defective in so far as the protection of animals from pain and suffering is concerned, and also that in any event an approved system of inspection and enforcement will be required. But before the law is amended it's surely necessary that an official inquiry into the present state of affairs should be instituted. A Royal Commission is generally rather a ponderous and slow-moving affair. I should like to ask that some form of

1343
statutory inquiry, calculated to give quicker results, should be set up, and that thereafter steps may be taken to amend the existing law and to ensure its adequate enforcement.
I cannot leave this subject without some reference to its esoteric side—to the place of the animal kingdom in the scheme of things, to man's responsibility to animals, and to the results of man's failure to meet this responsibility. As the human race evolves, it becomes ready for fresh revelation, and the defect in most of the world's religions is that they fail to realise this very important fact. The priests are inclined to say "everything that is necessary for salvation is contained in this Book. It is unnecessary and, indeed impious, to search elsewhere." It is, I think, this aspect of our childhood's teaching which leads to the idea that animals have no continuing life after physical death. That phrase in the 49th Psalm:
"The beasts that perish"
has much to answer for, for it is a fact that the beasts do not perish any more than do men. All life is one, and all its manifestations with which we have contact are climbing the ladder of evolution. The animals are our younger brothers and sisters, also on the ladder but a few rungs lower down than we are. It is an important part of our responsibilities to help them in their ascent, and not to retard their development by cruel exploitation of their helplessness.
What I am now saying, if people would realise it, is of very great practical importance, because failure to recognise our responsibilities towards the animal kingdom is the cause of many of the calamities which now beset the nations of the world. Nearly all of us have a deep-rooted wish for peace—peace on earth; but we shall never attain to true peace—the peace of love, and not the uneasy equilibrium of fear—until we recognise the place of animals in the scheme of things and treat them accordingly. So, my Lords, here is yet another argument in support of my Motion. If we have not yet reached the stage when we are willing to dispense with animal experimentation, let us at least ensure that pain and terror are eliminated to the fullest possible extent from our treatment of the animals. Let there be an open
1344
inquiry into present conditions in the experimental and manufacturing laboratories. Let the present law be amended in accordance with its findings, and let there be organised an adequate system of inspection and enforcement of the law as so amended. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.50 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I confess to having reflected during the past few minutes on the appositeness of delivering a maiden speech on a Motion dealing with painful experiments on animals, and I can but hope that this Motion has in that respect no sinister forebodings. As your Lordships will have gathered from the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, there are few topics which arouse deeper emotions than that of vivisection. Yet there are few which are more pregnant with decisions which affect the welfare of mankind. None who have listened to the noble and gallant Lord this afternoon can doubt the sincerity or fail to respect the sincerity of his declared convictions. But the intensity of feeling with which assertions are made is not necessarily proof of their validity. It does not exempt us from examining them on the basis of the available evidence.
The noble Lord has said that what is said in this House goes well beyond the House. It is for that reason that I want to apply myself to three questions which are frequently confused. The first is: has animal experiment led to knowledge which has helped to alleviate suffering, eradicate disease and save human life? The noble Lord has said that even if this were proved, he would still not approve of animal experimentation. But I think we must have an answer to that question, and I hope to be able to demonstrate to your Lordships that there is an overwhelmingly affirmative answer to it which only the woefully ignorant or the wilfully blind will fail to recognise.
The noble and gallant Lord spoke of "so-called therapeutic substances". What are these "so-called therapeutic substances" which have been discovered as the result of animal experimentation, which are standardised and purified by animal experimentation? Let us take first what the noble and gallant Lord referred to in his speech in October, 1952—vaccines and sera. I will quote only

1345
three examples. In the South African War, the incidence of typhoid fever was 105 per 1,000 combatants, and the death rate was 40·6 per 1,000. In other words, almost half those who were infected died. Because of the efforts of Sir Almroth Wright, in the First World War the incidence of typhoid fever was 2·35 per 1,000—that is, 45 times less than had been the incidence in the South African war—and the death rate 0·14, which was 300 times less. And that was an expression of the use of prophylactic vaccine.
To bring the matter up to date, many of your Lordships will know that there has been a striking decline both in the incidence of and in the death rate from diphtheria in this country during the last ten to fourteen years. Before that time we had a method which was partially successful in overcoming the most dire effects of diphtheria. Yet, despite the use of anti-toxin, the notifications of diphtheria in this country annually for the period 1932 to 1942 averaged 55,125, and of those cases 2,783 died. Then came the public campaign for active diphtheria immunisation and gradually, with a widening of immunisation, the incidence declined. The last figures which I have are those for 1955, and in that year, as compared with an annual incidence of diphtheria in this country of over 55,000 per annum, there were 155 notified cases of diphtheria. Compared with 2,783 deaths annually from diphtheria there were, in 1955, thirteen deaths, of which ten occurred in children under the age of fifteen. Of those ten, nine had not been immunised and one had been immunised over ten years previously.
It is, therefore, I suggest to your Lordships, fair to assume that in that period of ten years we have saved by active diphtheria immunisation alone at least 25,000 lives, all of which can be laid at the door of those who experimented with animals in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method of immunisation. In view of the age group which is involved in diphtheria, I believe firmly that we can hardly measure in terms of human suffering the saving in this country. Those who have had an only child who has succumbed to diphtheria know what human happiness has been lost. The noble and gallant Lord mentioned poliomyelitis. I do not propose to follow him upon the use of monkeys at this stage—it would broaden my thesis too
1346
widely. But the noble and gallant Lord knows that by the use of polio vaccine manufactured in this country the incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis has already been reduced to one-fifth in the vaccinated compared with that in the unvaccinated.
It is only in the last twenty years that drugs have become available to combat many of the common infections which assail the inhabitants of this country. The two main groups of drugs are the sulpha drugs and the antibiotics of which penicillin was the prototype. Now we have at our hand methods whereby we can control and eradicate most of the common infections which afflict mankind. Let me again give your Lordships two or three examples. One of the most tragic diseases which we saw, particularly during the First World War, was cerebro-spinal meningitis. In the American Civil War the death rate from cerebro-spinal meningitis was 90 per cent. In the First World War, as a result of the production of anti-meningococcal serum, the death rate was reduced to 30 per cent. During the Second World War, as a result of the exhibition of sulpha drugs, the death rate was reduced to 3 per cent. and in many epidemics was much smaller. Childbed fever or puerperal sepsis, as it is called, showed a distinct decline with the introduction of the sulpha drugs The incidence was about 50 per cent. of what it had been previously, and with the introduction of penicillin, the incidence was one-tenth of what it had been previously.
I do not deny that with many infections measures directed towards improving the public health—housing, good nutrition and the like—have played an important part; but if we take tuberculosis as an example of the value and benefits of antibiotic drugs, the chemo-therapeutic measures during the last five years, the incidence of tuberculosis in certain groups has gone down considerably, and the mortality from tuberculosis in the younger age groups has been reduced since 1949 to between 10 and 20 per cent. of what it was before 1949.
The noble Lord did not mention insulin this afternoon, though he referred to it, and to its convulsive effects, in his last speech to your Lordships. Insulin, however, is par excellence a discovery which owes everything to animal experiment.

1347
With insulin came the first of the great conquests of disease in the field of the internal secretory glands. Insulin is used for the control of diabetic mellitus. What was the expectation of life of a diabetic child of ten before the days of insulin? It was a few months; to-day it is forty-five years. A man of thirty who developed diabetes before 1922 could expect to live three or four years if he underwent strict dietetic control, but to-day his expectation of life is almost normal, almost average. Translate that into terms of the saving and prolonging of human life, and what do we find? That at least 200,000 diabetics in this country have had their lives prolonged and are able to lead useful and fruitful lives in the service of the community for a period of twenty, thirty or forty years longer than they otherwise would have the opportunity of doing.
Vitamine experiments have been carried out, and here animal experimentation is essential. What has been the result? The nutrition of this country is better to-day than it has been at any time past. During the war the Government introduced a welfare food scheme which had the result that in this country there were practically no cases of scurvy and rickets; nor have there been many since. We have maintained the welfare food scheme and it has proved a boon, whereas in other countries there has been evidence of growing nutritional deficiency, because there our knowledge has not been applied. But the knowledge came from animal experiments.
I could go on reiterating in the jubilant terms of victory the triumphs of animal experimentation and the contribution it has made to human knowledge and the alleviation of human sufferings. I would but remind your Lordships that the major advances in surgery to-day; the construction of new parts of the heart, the approach to the brain, the excision of the lungs in which there is malignant disease—all these owe practically everything to the knowledge which has been gained from the animal world about the control of infection, the control of hæmorrhage, the control of shock and of anæsthesia. Those who are prepared to proclaim that animal experiment should be banned must be prepared to let their fellow men suffer and succumb to diseases, the secrets of which
1348
might well yield in future to animal experiment.
I do not regard animal experiment as the exclusive method of medical investigation, but it is quite indispensable. As the noble Lord has said, it is true that animals do not always manifest the physiological activities of man; indeed, we could hardly expect them to do so. There is a striking example in the history of penicillin, which is toxic to guinea pigs although non-toxic to many other animals; and if the original experiments had been carried out on guinea pigs it might well have been that penicillin would never have been discovered. But it is not the dissimilarities that are important, it is the similarities; and the investigator selects the animal which has the appropriate similarities for the purpose of the experiment or investigation which he proposes to undertake. We are celebrating this year the tercentenary of the death of William Harvey, who put experiment, and the appropriate choice of animals for experiment, into the picture which led to the enormous advances that have been made during the centuries since his day.
Of course there is a certain range of similarity in animals and man. The heart of animals almost throughout the whole of the mammalian series is almost identical in its functions and activities with that of man. It is true that when one approaches certain higher functions—those of the nervous system for example—we have to use the higher primates for experimental purposes. I hasten to explain that in using the word "primate" I am not referring to either of the most reverend Primates who may sit on the Ecclesiastical Benches, but to the anthropoid world. It is those observations that have led to a knowledge of the functions of the brain which has made possible that magnificent work in cerebral surgery—the removal of brain tumours, and of scars following injuries received under epileptic attacks and the like, which the pages of our medical journals in the last twenty-five years record dramatically.
Occasionally, man himself is necessary for the crucial experiment, and man has never hesitated to become the subject of an experiment which might help his fellow men. Those who have read the

1349
history of the transmission of yellow fever and other tropical diseases will know that the very people who are alleged to exercise a wanton and cruel outlook to animals in the laboratory have themselves been prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the interests of mankind. And I could quote examples of drugs which have been tried by men and which have ultimately led to enormous improvements in our control of disease. There are experiments, such as the effect of nerve section and the like, which require a conscious man, and such experiments have been carried out on man. There are experiments which require a knowledge of how long sutures remain in the body, and my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson has carried out those experiments on himself on at least sixty occasions. Can there be any doubt, then, that animal experimentation has led to an enormous increase in the control by man of diseases which befall him?
There is one other question, the second question: is everything done to avoid pain? I will not reiterate—indeed I wish the noble Lord had re-read with the same enthusiasm as he had about the foreign translations of the speeches which he made in your Lordships House—the words which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, spoke in which he dealt convincingly with the accusations about pain made by the noble Lord the mover of this Motion. He detailed the steps which must be taken, the care before certificates are granted, and the method of inspection; and it is wholly wrong to suggest that
"these are a hollow sham to throw dust in the eyes of the public",
if I may quote the words which the noble Lord used.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, says that there were in 1955 2½ million experiments; and that is true. But over 2 million of those are simply pin-pricks into animals, or the removal of blood through a pin or needle from an animal; they are superficial, and they are covered by certain certificates under the Act. He suggests that the reason why there have not been prosecutions is that the law is not being carried out. But is it not also possible that those who are licensed under the Act are observing the law? There are many laws under which there have been no prosecutions, and this may well be one of them. Indeed, in 1955 only nine irregularities were recorded, and
1350
the inspectors made it perfectly clear that in none of these irregularities had there been any deliberate intention to contravene the Act.
In view of what the noble Lord said about wanton cruelty, I must apply myself to one aspect of this problem. The poet has written:
"True it is Nature hides
Her treasures less and less; Man now presides, In power where once he trembled in his weakness:
Science advances with gigantic strides."
And then Wordsworth asks:
"But are we aught enriched in love and meekness?"
Thirty years' close association with experimental physiologists, bacteriologists and others who seek power over nature and use animal experiments convinces me that they are enriched by their work in love and meekness and in their service to mankind; and they resent—and I use the word "resent" advisedly—any insinuations which suggest that they are callous and indifferent to suffering, wanton and cruel people, quite sadistic in their outlook. I would quote what the Royal Commission of 1912 said on this point. They said:
"We desire further to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations of operations inflicted on animals which are frequently circulated by post, advertisement or otherwise, are in many cases calculated to mislead the public, in so far as they suggest that the animals in question were not under an anæsthetic. To represent that animals subjected to experiments in this country are wantonly tortured would, in our opinion, be absolutely false."
Those are the words of the Royal Commission, and I gather that the noble Lord is asking for them to be repeated. We respect the noble Lord's motives. Let him respect the motives of those who undertake these experiments.
It is extremely difficult, as any of the Members of your Lordships' House who have practised the law will know, to rebut a vague charge or a non-specific indictment. If the noble Lord has specific indictments, let him utter them in the right place, and they will be met. But if he has to rely on what the window-cleaner or the butler saw, then I suspect that the evidence is not well founded. To suppose that the most shocking experiments are carried out behind closed doors is, I suggest, to impute motives to others which he would not have imputed to

1351
himself; and I suspect that as acceptable a variation of the Golden Rule as many is: Do not impute motives to others which you would not have imputed to you. The noble Lord surrounds his utterances with a number of adjectives with a great emotional content; he speaks of "revolting", of "terrifying" and of "cruel". Something may be revolting, but it may still have to be done. Anyone who has nursed, as I have nursed, certain types of patient has done things which are often revolting, but in the interests of humanity must be done. Anyone witnessing the surgeon at an operation who has not known what happens is terrified by the procedure; but it is not necessarily an inhumane procedure.
I will not argue in this House with the noble Lord on anæsthetics: dial, amytal and urethane are all anæsthetics, and I am prepared to demonstrate on the noble Lord himself that they have anæsthetic properties. Is it really fair at this stage to bring in curare, when the licence itself makes it perfectly clear that no experiment in which curare or other substances having similar curare form can be used without the special permission of the Secretary of State,
"and forty-eight hours' notice of the performance of every experiment or series of similar experiments so permitted shall be given to the inspector"?
I am prepared in this House to say, without fear of contradiction that no wanton cruelty is inflicted on animals during the course of physiological, therapeutic, bacteriological or other scientific investigation.
There is, however, a third question to which the noble Lord referred—namely, the ethical question. On this, if I have taken down the words of the noble Lord accurately, he has made his position perfectly clear. He says: "Even should it be conclusively proved that human beings benefit directly from the suffering of animals, its infliction would, nevertheless, be unethical and wrong". I, and I am sure my colleagues, respect that view, although I would remind the noble Lord and Members of your Lordships' House that it is inevitable that you all benefit from animal experiments, whether you know it or not your pure water supply, your pure food supply and the like are dependent on animal experiment. But the noble Lord must remember that there
1352
are others, and they comprise the vast majority of mankind, who conceive that man's prime duty is towards his fellow man. They deplore, as deeply as do the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and his friends, cruelty to animals, and in this they include experiments which are unnecessary, irrelevant and unjustifiable, and any means which can be devised to ensure that such experiments are not carried out will be acceptable to them.
They believe, however, that our present law, which is much more stringent than the law of any other country in this field, satisfactorily meets, through the methods of certification, the problem of inflicting unnecessary pain. Any of your Lordships who care to go into this question will find that those methods of certification are extremely complicated and difficult, and that the safeguards of inspection make it perfectly char that no wanton cruelty occurs. If the noble Lord wishes to bring specific instances of violation of the law, then they can be investigated; but vague charges and insinuations can never be adequately answered. My colleagues know that the Home Office exercises its statutory responsibility, with a due sense of the gravity and importance of its task, efficiently and effectively. The overwhelming majority of those who, like myself, have engaged in the practice of medicine for thirty years, and have shared in the human suffering and tragedy occasioned by disease, could not endure our daily tasks for long if we were deprived of the hope that that measure—namely, animal experiment, the monumental achievements of which in the past have solved so many of our most difficult problems—would remain. We must know that it will remain an instrument—we have established that it is an indispensable instrument—for the future. The noble Lord said that the windmill of banning animal experiments altogether was beyond the reach of his lance. My last words to-day to your Lordships are: may it ever remain so!
3.22 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am sure that I may, without impertinence, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, on a maiden speech which bears so little sign of having been a maiden speech. He has put before your Lordships' House with admirable force and clarity the case for the continuation

1353
of experiments on animals in the cause of medical and surgical science; and he has done so with an eloquence which one seldom finds in purely scientific discussions.
When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, brought forward his Motion in much the same terms in 1952, I ventured to address your Lordships' House, not because I am a scientist but because I was for many years closely associated with the Research Defence Society, which originated as a result of the Royal Commission of 1906 as a means of defence against the activities of certain anti-vivisectionist societies, which were at that time strongly militant. I have no desire to enter on to the wide field which has been so admirably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. I merely wish to repeat, on behalf of my associates in that Society, that they themselves are always ready to admit that the Act to which the noble and gallant Lord has referred is out of date. It is of old standing and requires in some measure to be brought up to date. They would not object to that. But they would protest very strongly indeed against the introduction of any measure which would in any way curtail the possibility of recourse to experiments on animals, because they regard these as having been indispensable in the progress of medical and surgical science and as the means of bringing incalculable benefits, not only to mankind but also to the animal kingdom.
A good deal is now known in this country, owing to the efforts of scientists, of some of the facts to which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has referred—the facts regarding the progress that has been made in combating diseases in mankind and in aiding the science of surgery. But not enough is known of what has been done for the animal world, and perhaps it is only those who have seen something of the effective means that have been taken to meet the great scourges of epidemics in Asia and in Africa who are able to speak with any confidence or warmth on that subject. Much has been said of the harm and the wickedness of injury to animals. There is not a scientist, I am convinced, who would support anything like a wilful infliction of pain, but let us not forget what has been done for the animal world, for whom the anti-vivisectionists show such tender care.
3.26 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for long, since I know we all wish to be elsewhere very soon, but I cannot let this debate pass without saying a few words in support of the noble Lord's Motion. Humanitarians, and those who hold strong views on this subject, are apt, I think, to be regarded as fanatics—and sometimes, possibly, not without reason. There are a great many who are a little unbalanced in their views on this subject and who take every opportunity of making their views public, but unfortunately those who remain a little more silent on the question are labelled with the same label. I hope that I have a slightly more balanced view on the subject than the extremists, and I wish to say at once that I have the greatest respect for both the medical and the scientific professions, and that I am certainly not willing to cast any aspersions on either of them.
We must, I think, look certain facts straight in the face. First of all, we must see that we do not avoid looking these facts in the face by that great barrier to any improvement, indifference. We must examine the facts, pro and con, and come to a logical conclusion. Vivisection, of course, is an activity, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, said, which does not generally come before the public eye, and a good deal of what goes on in these laboratories is unknown. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, if I understood him aright, suggested that a great many of these circulars which are sent round by the anti-vivisectionist societies and so on, are merely vague charges, and should not be taken seriously. May I suggest to him, with all due respect, that those charges are not made without careful investigation and could, on application to those societies, be proved absolutely up to the hilt?
There is no doubt, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, has said, that 250,000 monkeys are exported from India every year for experiments, and that 2½ million experiments on all animals take place in this country each year. If these experiments are justified by a wholesale alleviation of disease, then to a point—a very limited point, may I make it quite clear—they are justifiable

1355
In saying that, I would also add the comment that the doctrine "to do evil that good may come" is a very dangerous one to adopt, because, if one carries it to its logical conclusion, one finds perfectly good justification for all the atrocities that have ever taken place on the earth, from mediæval times to the present day. So I think that is certainly an attitude to be avoided. On the other hand, as I say, if the scientific profession finds it impossible to alleviate human disease without these experiments, and is convinced that, with the experiments, it can alleviate them, then I would say that a limited amount of experiment, under very strict supervision and control, is justifiable.
When we look round the world to-day, however, are we really convinced, in spite of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, gave us in his most able speech, that disease has been alleviated so very much? Certainly, I do not remember that as a boy I was aware of the infantile paralysis among adults which is quite commonplace to-day. Though I am no scientist, I have been told on authority that some of these sera which are injected to cure one disease will also kill certain organisms which are preventives of other diseases. So that in removing one evil they open the door to another. I cannot prove that to your Lordships, because, as I say, I am no scientist, but I was told that by one who is, and one whose word I can trust, and I therefore take that as being the case. Cancer, for instance, is a disease that does not seem to be reduced very much. I cannot say that it is any less common a disease to-day than it was, say, twenty years ago. If twenty years of experiments on 2½ million animals per year can effect no more than a minor reduction of a disease, then I say that those experiments are not justifiable.
As to the better nutrition of children, surely that is a matter of common sense, and of better food and living conditions which any sensible parents, having been educated as to the upbringing of their children, at once apply. I do not think that one can attribute to these experiments with animals any improvements in the welfare of our children to-day. On the ethical question, I must say that I
1356
agree entirely with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding. If experiments are necessary, then we must face the fact that we must do our utmost to see that the unfortunate victims of those experiments do not suffer. That they do suffer very much is perfectly provable to people who do not—as I am afraid a great many who support this activity are apt to do—close their eyes to certain facts merely because they are undesirable facts which they do not wish to admit. My Lords, I support this Motion very warmly.
3.34 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise only for a moment, because I think there is a considerable measure of agreement here. I think that everybody recognises that experiments are necessary, but there is some doubt whether the experiments are being conducted in the most auspicious circumstances. I should have thought that, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, there could be no shadow of doubt that everything possible is done both to alleviate suffering on the part of animals and to get the benefit of the result of the experiments. In these matters, it is largely a conflict of right and right. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, we know, is perfectly sincere and made a most moving statement. But is it not the fact that we have to ensure that the results of our efforts are, in the end, the least possible suffering to life? It may even be necessary to inflict a certain amount of suffering on a few in order to benefit a large number.
My main purpose in rising, however, is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, on a most remarkable maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, said he could hardly realise that it was a maiden speech, but I am assured that it was. I doubt whether I have ever heard a more impressive maiden speech in this House than that of the noble, Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. It is traditional to express the hope that he will speak again on many occasions. I should like to say that not only is he to be congratulated, but this House is to be congratulated upon a most valuable acquisition. I hope that we shall often hear from him, not only on these specialised subjects but on many others to which I am quite sure he will have a valuable contribution to make.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I hope that, with the indulgence of the House, your Lordships will allow me to make a short statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. Your Lordships will recollect that on November 1, 1955, I announced the appointment of the Committee to inquire into the Practice and Procedure of Administrative Tribunals. This Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Oliver Franks, included among its members three Members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I have now received the Report of the Committee and it is available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office. I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the chairman and members of the Committee for the remarkable expedition with which they have found it possible to complete this highly important and far-reaching inquiry.
My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me a personal indulgence? The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, started the practice of medicine at almost the same time that I started the practice of the law in Liverpool. I hope your Lordships will allow me to take this slightly irregular opportunity to convey my congratulations to him on his brilliant speech to which we have just listened, and to say that it will give pleasure not only to his old friends, of whom I am pleased to be one, but to countless people on Mersey-side, and far beyond.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount has been in any way irregular, I am quite sure he has the forgiveness of the whole House. On the statement that he has just made, I should like to thank him for his tribute to the expedition of the Committee—it has worked very hard, as I well know. I hope that it will be met with equal expedition on the part of the Government in making up their own minds about what they intend to do with the Report.

PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS
Debate resumed.
3.41 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there is one aspect of this matter upon which I should like to touch for a few moments before the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, replies. Before doing so, I should like to add my congratulations to those of my noble friend Lord Silkin to Lord Cohen of Birkenhead upon what we all agree has been a most agreeable maiden speech. It is of some pleasure to me, a humble member of the Bar, to think that those two noble Lords, the one, the Lord Chancellor, in the legal profession and the other in the medical profession, should have reached the highest eminence more or less contemporaneously.
My Lords, the ethical side of the matter under debate has been greatly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding in his speech, and also by Lord Somers. It seems to me that in the case of both of these distinguished Members of your Lordships' House their hearts are stronger than their heads; and even when they are arguing that pain to animals is not ethically justifiable just because it has enabled human beings to be better looked after medically and cured of painful diseases, they overlook completely the fact that one of the great triumphs in, modern science has been the progress of veterinary science, which has alleviated pain and suffering in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of animals. This science has been just as much dependent on the same sort of experimentation on their fellow animals as has the progress which has been made in medicine for human beings.
I dislike the arrogance of those who attack scientific progress of this kind when they arrogate to themselves the title of humanitarians. Lord Somers spoke of humanitarians and others who take this view. Surely the medical scientists, whose contribution to progress in the modern world has perhaps been more outstanding than that of any other group of people, are just as much, and perhaps still more, deserving of the term "humanitarian" I would therefore suggest to both noble Lords, Lord Dowding and Lord Somers,

1359
that they should realise that these experiments have relieved animals themselves from a good deal of pain and suffering. From that point of view, what has been going on is clearly ethically justifiable.
3.44 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I find myself at what has been agreed to-day to be rather a late hour, and therefore I must start by asking the indulgence of your Lordships if my remarks, in the interests of brevity, should seem to be a little on the terse side. I particularly ask for the indulgence of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, in that respect. The noble and gallant Lord told us, in the speech in which he moved his Motion, that he considered that his effort when he spoke five years ago seemed to have been wasted. If he will allow me to say so, I do not quite agree with him, because not only do we respect his strong views on this matter but I believe that this is a subject capable of considerable misunderstanding and even, in some quarters, misrepresentation. I think it is a good thing that from time to time it should be brought forward and discussed publicly from all angles.
We should, I think, welcome the fact that he has put down this Motion, and our gratitude is due to him for even more than that. Personally, I am most grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me notice of all the points he proposed to raise. I hope to be able to give him some satisfaction upon them. Your Lordships will also be grateful to him for the very reasonable way in which he approaches his subject, with his strong views, because we know that it is one that is not always approached in such a spirit of reasonableness.
I feel that it would be proper for me, also, to say here and now that I am sure there is no-one, individually or collectively, in Her Majesty's Government, in your Lordships' House or in what I may loosely term the world of science and medicine, who has not the utmost personal sympathy with the basic object which the noble and gallant Lord has in mind. All of us, certainly including myself, have the strongest feelings against any form of practice causing avoidable pain to animals. But I do not
1360
think it is for me to-day to launch into a discussion of the moral aspect of vivisection or to debate with the noble and gallant Lord the esoteric responsibility that we may feel towards animals. I think my function is merely to mention something of what is the law in the matter, and how we can see that the necessary safeguards, which all are agreed must be provided, are in fact adequately provided.
It must be remembered that the Department for which I am speaking, the Home Office, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, have no vested interest in vivisection, either for or against. They are simply charged with the duty of seeing that the law is properly enforced. It is from that aspect and that aspect alone that I am going to make my own approach to this problem. Fortunately, I do not have to say anything about the question of the medical and scientific desirability of animal experiments, because that has been said for me in that most remarkable and powerful maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, to whom I should like to add my sincere congratulations from this Bench. If it no longer sounds trite, after other noble Lords have said it, may we hear him often again! Supported by Lord Hailey, I think that that side has been most strongly, effectively and completely put, and in a far better way than I can ever hope to achieve. Therefore I shall try to say what I want to say about the Act, with what I hope is going to turn out to be a complete record of brevity.
My Lords, nobody can perform an experiment on a live animal unless he has a licence. Nobody can get a licence unless he is a properly approved person; his application must be backed, as I think is known pretty widely, first of all by the president of a learned society, and secondly by a professor of a branch of medical science. His application is submitted and is considered; and if necessary it is referred to the Advisory Committee. If everything is satisfactory, including the premises on which he proposes to perform the experiments and the purposes of those experiments, he is granted a licence. Having been granted a licence he may do nothing unless the animal is under an anæsthetic of sufficient power to protect it from feeling pain,

1361
except in certain circumstances, where certificates come in. These certificates were the subject of criticism by the noble and galiant Lord. I will not go right through them; I will just quote one or two to show the type of things they are. In fact they do not permit practically anything to be done; they are a protection for animals. They are a very considerable restriction on what may be done to animals, and they are far more in the interests of animals than of those who perform experiments under the Act.
Certificate A, for instance, permits experiments without anæsthetics. Such a certificate has to be applied for with a statement giving the reasons for which it is wanted and the nature of the operation, and, again, it has to be countersigned by the two learned gentlemen I mentioned. The Home Secretary invariably imposes as a condition of that certificate that no operative procedure that takes place must be anything more severe than simple inoculation or superficial venesection. Let us now go to the other end of the scale, to Certificate F. Certificate F permits nothing except experiments on horses, asses or mules, and no other certificate will permit an experiment on any of these three unless it is accompanied by Certificate F. Certificate F, naturally, is not granted unless everyone concerned is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. So these certificates which the noble and gallant Lord has criticised do, in fact, constitute safeguards for the animals more than anything else.
The noble and gallant Lord went on to criticise the inspectors. I think he used what I may perhaps be forgiven for terming almost strong language on the subject. He talked about "a hollow sham", and "throwing dust in people's eyes". With the greatest respect to the noble and gallant Lord, I think that in making that statement he does a disservice to a most conscientious and hard working body of public servants—the inspectors under the Act. Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that he does rather a disservice to the cause of the animals which we are seeking to protect by inferring that such an inspection is no good. It was said also that five inspectors to cover some 2,500,000 experiments was ridiculous, which perhaps it might be in certain circumstances. But I think that
1362
the proper figure to which we must relate the number of inspectors is the number of places in which those experiments are carried out. The number of registered places in the year 1956 was 511 and I think in these days of rapid communications—and I can assure your Lordships that the inspectors work hard and conscientiously—that is not too great a number for them to cover. After all, it is possible to take a room the size of the Princes' Chamber in your Lordships' House and have two thousand experiments carried on simultaneously in it.
LORD MATHERS: May I ask what is the number of inspectors?
LORD CHESHAM: Five. The noble Lord also said that there had been no prosecutions under the Act since 1876. That is perfectly true. I think it can be fairly regarded as a tribute to the spirit in which experiments are made and also to the successful working of the Act. It is, I think, proof that scientific workers have no interest at all in causing unnecessary pain to animals. It must be remembered that there are also other measures that can be taken. No one is likely to engage in vivisection unless there is some good reason for it, and there is the penalty of suspension of licence which can be imposed by my right honourable friend and which can prove a very heavy penalty.
There is yet another course which can be followed in cases of deliberate, wanton cruelty to animals, for this can well be tackled under the common law—under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. Many cases have been brought under this Act, but, it is a notable point that no successful prosecution has ever been brought under it against a licensee—anyone who holds a vivisection licence. The noble and gallant Lord gave us some instances of information being obtained from laboratories. He mentioned a doctor who saw certain things and made it his business at Oxford to find out about them. He was horrified, he said, by what he saw, and since then he has been imbued with a crusading spirit. The noble and gallant Lord will forgive me if I am a little sceptical about this particular doctor. If he saw these terrible things, why were they not reported? There are the inspectors whose sole duty it is to stop that sort of thing and see that the law is preserved. In fact, the Chief Inspector is

1363
within the confines of your Lordships' House at this moment and it would be possible for the noble and gallant Lord to get in touch with him at once if these things are so.
Further, why did this doctor take a remark from a medical student as being indicative of what was the object of an experiment? I do not suppose that the medical student had anything to do with the experiment. He had merely been told to do a certain thing and he was proceeding to do it. I should have thought that if the head of the department had been referred to he could probably have shed a good deal of light on the matter. But apparently no inquiry was made of him. I hope that these matters may be brought forward. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the appropriate authorities would be only too keen to hear about them if they are as he says.
The noble and gallant Lord referred to a case of something that was seen by a window-cleaner in Birmingham. I must tell your Lordships that that case was fully investigated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and that that Society took no action. It was also thoroughly investigated by an inspector from my right honourable friend's Department. The inspector investigated it right through and found that everything was all right. In a later interview with the Press the window-cleaner virtually retracted most of what he had said in the first instance. He stated that he was "not a bit sure", that he "could not really tell", and that in any case he was a layman and did not really understand. I do not think that information coming from such a source in the first instance could really hold a good deal of weight as to the terrible things which were suggested.
The noble and gallant Lord also mentioned the case of the 300 monkeys which were suffocated in a van by a most regrettable accident. Of course, they were not our monkeys; they were going to America. He then went on to talk about the remainder of the quarter of a million monkeys exported by India. I shall be only too happy to withdraw this inference if I am wrong, but it seemed to me that there was always the suggestion underlying the noble and gallant Lord's words that they came to this country for some
1364
foul and revolting purpose of our own. That is not so. They went, perhaps, all over the world, and in this debate I must confine myself to what goes on in this country. I really cannot be responsible for what happens in America.
The noble Lord mentioned the names of the experimental establishments at Porton and Harwell as though they were vast consumers of monkeys. I assure your Lordships that that is not so. The establishments there, and all other Government establishments, come under exactly the same rules and are inspected in exactly the same way as any other establishments in this country where experiments are practised. They enjoy no favourable position. They enjoy no freedom from inspection or anything of the kind and have to get licences in exactly the same way as any individual. I should like to make that clear here and now.
It is fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, made such a good "maiden", because he has covered the ground much better than I can do it. In conclusion, I can only repeat the assurance I have given, addressing myself particularly to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding. The objects of this Motion have the full sympathy of us all. I assure him that my right honourable friend and his Department, his inspectors and all those who carry out this kind of work, are most careful and conscientious. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we will continue to be watchful to see that the law is properly carried out. I believe that it is adequate for the purpose, as I have tried to show, and that it is not riddled with loopholes. But I would give the noble Lord this final assurance: that if ever the law proves to be inadequate, we shall be the first to wish it amended.
4.3 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I thought it only right in my opening remarks to say what my own personal opinions were about vivisection, but I wish to make the point that I did not make my speech on that basis. What I asked for was that there should be an inquiry into the state of affairs as it existed to-day, because there has been no public inquiry for nearly fifty years. A great deal of the speeches and arguments that we have heard this afternoon has not been entirely relevant to the Motion which I raised. If it is contended

1365
that in this matter all is for the best in the best of possible worlds, and that five inspectors are sufficient to supervise this great number of experiments and ensure that the law is enforced, I suppose I must accept that answer for the time being; but I cannot be expected to agree with it.
As points have been raised in other speeches, I think it is only right that I should deal with one or two of them, otherwise it might be thought that I have been convinced by what has been said. The question of diphtheria immunisation was raised. According to my information, if there is any fear or any evidence of any form of polio in a neighbourhood, diphtheria immunisation is absolutely stopped. If I am wrong about that, I shall be glad to be corrected. The question of insulin was brought up, as an example of a triumph of vivisection. There is no question that a great many lives have been saved, or prolonged, by the use of insulin; but, of course, insulin is not a cure for diabetes, it is merely a palliative for the symptoms. The fallacy of quoting insulin as a great success in the medical world lies in this argument. Before insulin was invented and brought into general use, the number of diabetic women patients who were able to produce children was 2 or 2½ per cent. Since the general use of insulin, the number of women diabetics who can produce children has gone up to something like 25 per cent. The result of this is that the incidence of diabetes as a disease is growing rapidly, and in ten years' time it may be a major problem in this country.
I feel much at a disadvantage as a layman in having to conduct medical arguments with people who know infinitely more about it than I do, and what I should like to see is a B.B.C. television discussion between a really competent defender and a really competent attacker of vivisection. I am sure that that would be of the greatest interest and of the greatest value. One other matter the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, referred to was the number of experiments which doctors have made on themselves. I am heartily in agreement with that, but I cannot understand how that can be used as an argument against objections to vivisection. It is precisely the sort of thing one would advocate;
1366
that experiments should be on doctors in preference to on animals.
One last point with regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead—it relates to the often reiterated argument that an animal suffers nothing more than a pinprick. It is quite true the original operation consists only of a pinprick—something is injected into the animal. But the suffering comes later, and it may be that weeks, months, or even years of suffering result from that original pinprick. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, asked about specific instances. I am not quite sure to whom these specific instances are to be given. If I give a list of them to the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, will he be in a position to deal with the question? I am quite sure that I can produce a long list of specific instances, but to whom am I to give them? Will the Home Secretary accept such a list?
LORD CHESHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I did say clearly that the person to whom it should be given is the Chief Inspector, whose duty it is to see that these acts are carried out properly. The noble Lord can give the list to him direct, or, if he will be good enough to give them to me, I will see that the Chief Inspector receives it.
LORD DOWDING: I thank the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, said that the Cruelty to Animals Act needs to be brought up to date. I do not know whether that view is endorsed by the Government. What I have asked for is an inquiry, the results of which eventually will be communicated to the public; and such an inquiry has not been carried out for nearly fifty years. I would earnestly request that that suggestion should receive consideration, and that it should not be turned down flat. I think there is ample evidence to show that, in spite of the good intentions of the law and the devoted work of the five inspectors, serious irregularities take place from time to time. I will mention just one case: is it suggested that the "Siamesing" of rats by a student working for a degree is a reasonable experiment that is likely to have any lasting benefit to society? I could, I am sure, produce a number of instances of that sort. I will only ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that the

1367
matter may be kept open for a little while to enable me to produce some of the evidence which is apparently required in order to convince the Government that action is necessary.
There is no secret about the name of the doctor to whom I referred, and I shall be glad to give his name—indeed, I think it might be a good thing if I could put him in direct touch with the authorities. Here is a practical man, and he can say what he has seen, not as an amateur, but as somebody who knows what he is talking about; and I am sure he will be able to convince the authorities that some of the things he saw are not experiments which would be justifiable by any responsible outsider.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was kind enough to thank me for giving notice of what I was going to say. But it would have been foolish of me to get up and make a speech without letting the authorities know what I was going to say, because I could not expect the Home Secretary suddenly to be moved by my eloquence and give a satisfactory answer on the spot. So what I did in giving preliminary notice of my speech was willingly done, and it seemed to be elementary common sense. I do not intend to press this Motion to-day and, as I have the assurance that the matter will not be considered as finally closed
1368
now, and that I may take it up later, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TEACHING OF SWIMMING IN SCHOOLS
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider making the teaching of swimming obligatory in all schools. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the hour, I propose—and I hope I am in order—to withdraw my Motion now and raise the matter at a more convenient time.
TANGANYIKA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª, and to be printed.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON-COXGREEN FOOT BRIDGE) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past four o'clock.