Lords Sitting of 2 April 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Lord Colgrain—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Unsuitable Teachers
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what method can be used by local education authorities to get rid of unsuitable schoolteachers so that headmasters and headmistresses can be helped to raise the standards in their schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, local education authorities may dismiss any teacher if they are satisfied that their reasons for that action would satisfy an industrial tribunal in the event of a claim of unfair dismissal by the teacher in question, but they are not otherwise limited as to their reasons for terminating employment. In certain circumstances premature retirement compensation may be paid to those aged 50 or more who are retired early. Decisions on dismissals and early retirements are for local education authorities to take, and the noble Lord will appreciate that I must be careful not to declare how they should conduct their affairs as employers of teachers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are headmasters and headmistresses who have teachers in their schools who, through illness, perhaps especially mental illness, are totally incapable of teaching a class effectively? Does a headmaster have to go and collect evidence from psychologists and doctors and appear in front of a tribunal, or is there a simpler way of effecting dismissal, so that the standard of teaching in our schools can be steadily improved and not lowered?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Schools Regulations 1959, as amended, include provision for a local education authority to terminate a teacher's employment on medical grounds. But in other cases it will, of course, be necessary for the local authority, if they wish compulsorily to retire a teacher, to do so subject to the rights of appeal against unfair dismissal.
Baroness David: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that probably the best way to improve the quality of teaching, if it is not entirely satisfactory, is to send teachers for in-service training? Is it not important to have enough money in the grant to enable in-service training to take place?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the Government are concerned to maintain and improve the quality of the teacher force, and there is no doubt that in-service training is one way to improve that quality.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that everything she has just said applies only to England? If she wants some real guidance on how to deal with this problem, will she look at what happens in Scotland, where entry into the profession and the qualifications for that are in the hands of the General Teaching Council in Scotland. The disciplinary committee of that General Teaching Council can deal much more satisfactorily with the kind of matter the noble Lord mentioned in his Question, and it has the full support of the teachers.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the question of a General Teaching Council is, of course, quite wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Naturally, my answers referred to England, and of course there is a procedure for cases of misconduct of teachers.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, while I agree with my noble friend that there are in schools a number of teachers who are really not suitable, is not the real remedy to select the candidates for training more carefully and then give them better training?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it has been possible to improve the entry requirements for entry into teacher training, and this is one way in which undoubtedly we shall in the future reap the benefits of having better teachers. But I think it is important to recognise that local education authorities, at a time of falling school rolls and a contracting teacher force, will as a rule use the methods of reducing recruitment of teachers or redeployment or early retirement in order to manage the total teaching force to the best effect.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, why are we setting ourselves up as judges of this issue? By what right do we do so? We have heard today nothing to show that we know how to choose teachers and how to choose their intellectual qualities.
Baroness Young: My Lords, neither I nor my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing are setting ourselves up in judgment on this. My noble friend asked a Question, and I hope I gave the Answer.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask seriously whether the noble Baroness is aware that many a brilliant teacher has gone into teaching and been destroyed psychologically because of the huge size of classes in the old schools? If we want good teaching we must get the size of classes down to that of the public schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that at the present time we have in this country the lowest ever pupil-teacher ratio.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is this Question not something which is of national concern? The pupils

301
coming out of our schools at the moment are causing some concern. Is it not a fact in this connection that there have been established in London, for example, schools which are to take care of those pupils to whom it is impossible to teach any knowledge at all?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the survey conducted by the inspectorate into secondary schools did show that for the most part most schools are orderly and hard working places. There are, of course, weaknesses in the school system, and I share with other noble Lords the wish to maintain and improve the standards of the teachers. There are, of course, some teachers who lack commitment or who are personally unsuited to teaching, but the kind of problems the local education authorities are facing at the moment are those which are concerned with falling rolls and the need to preserve curricula opportunities for all the pupils in the schools.

Vacant Dwellings
3.13p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which local authorities in England and Wales have had more than 500 dwellings vacant for longer than a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the Housing Investment Strategies Plans for 1981–82 submitted by local authorities in England indicate that 12 local authorities had more than 500 dwellings vacant for longer than a year. I will gladly undertake to circulate the names in the Official Report. For Wales this information is not collected centrally.
The names referred to above are as follows:

Manchester

1,869

Islington

1,401

Knowsley

1,400

Hackney

1,267

Southwark

1,196

Lambeth

1,189

Camden

1,080

Birmingham

780

Lewisham

757

Corby

714

Hammersmith and Fulham

645

Haringey

548

Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the national mobility scheme was announced yesterday by the Minister, Mr. John Stanley, will the Minister ensure, as the scheme was welcomed by 333 metropolitan, district and local authorities, that it is made widely known so that people can apply for this kind of mobility in their areas?
Lord Bellwin: Yes, my Lords, I shall gladly ensure that what is being done now receives the maximum publicity.

China: Famine Relief Request
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg leave 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 are prepared to promote action to supplement the meagre response by the EEC to an informal Chinese request for famine relief.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government have no plans to do so. A formal appeal has only just been launched by the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the amount of help offered was £2.7 million and that compares with something in the region of £120 million being offered to help Poland, which is right and proper? In view of the fact that China's relations with the West are constantly improving, would it not be right and proper for the Government to push forward the suggested conference of donors under the auspices of the United Nations in order to help China in her great difficulties?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the aid was agreed and will take the form of 8,000 tonnes of rapeseed oil and 2,000 tonnes of dried skimmed milk. The scale of the disaster in China is enormous. Almost any imaginable European Community response from within existing European Community aid allocations would appear modest in relation to the size of the problem. The appeal has only just been launched. The United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation has approached some 24 donors. It will be up to that organisation to evaluate a response.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would it not be much better if, instead of sending this rather small tonnage of rapeseed oil to China, which is not posing a threat to anybody, we were to send to China the amount of butter which we send to Russia, or similar products to China rather than to Russia?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that the important factor is to show that we care, and the European Community response has demonstrated just that.

School Closures
3.17 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why there are

303
such long delays in answering local education authorities' requests to close schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, of the school closure proposals made by local education authorities between March and December 1980 and requiring a decision by my right honourable friend, about two-thirds were decided within four months of the date on which notices expired. Those which took more than four months were normally complex proposals, or ones which attracted a large volume of objections, and therefore took longer to consider. We understand the need to take decisions on all proposals as quickly as possible, and every effort is made to avoid unnecessary delay.
Baroness David: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, does she not think that perhaps four months is still quite a long time, because there is great uncertainty for the staff, for parents and for children in these cases? The consultation will probably have been going on for six months or more before the proposal is sent to the department. Could the Minister try to hurry up the whole affair?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our proposals under the 1980 Education Act were, of course, designed to speed up the school closure process, and therefore those proposals which attract no objection are now dealt with by local authorities themselves unless the Secretary of State wishes to intervene and settle the matter himself. That has speeded up some proposals. We are conscious of the time that is taken, but it is very necessary for each to be considered very carefully, particularly when they attract a large number of objections, and when Members of Parliament wish to bring deputations it does take more than two months after the expiry of the notices before the matter can be settled.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to ask one further question. Can the Minister give an assurance that once the statutory two months for objections is finished, the objections and queries which come in after that time will not be considered?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I could not give an absolute assurance on that because, clearly, if a deputation comes to see a Minister and raises new points, those must be considered because otherwise there would be no point in seeing the deputation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while sympathising with my noble friend's concern about the uncertainty raised through this delay, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no speeding up of the process that can obviate the very real objections that are being made, particularly in rural areas where it takes a long time to collect such objections? Can the Minister assure us that where there are wide objections, as there are in many rural areas, they will be treated with the fullest possible concern by her Ministry?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can give an assurance that in every case of a school closure, whether it is in a country area or in a town, the matter is considered very carefully and all the relevant information is taken into account before a decision is taken.
Baroness David: My Lords, with the many closures for which the department has asked in the next year or so, will the backlog get bigger?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the expected fall in the school population of about 1½ million and the Government's expenditure proposals, assuming a closing of about 75,000 school places, there will inevitably be an increase in the number of proposals coming before the Secretary of State. It is for these reasons that we have not only amended the arrangements by our new procedures in the Education Act 1980, but are looking at our own internal procedures to ensure that we can deal with the proposals efficiently and at the same time give full consideration to the many points of view that are expressed upon them.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Queen's University of Belfast (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
3.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple order which provides for the repeal of certain legislation relating to Queen's University, Belfast, if Her Majesty is pleased to grant a new Charter for the university. The new Charter has been requested by the university as a result of changes in circumstances since the university was incorporated and with a view to better management of the university's affairs.
The general objective of the revised Charter and statutes is to simplify and clarify the statutes, and to make their provisions more appropriate to present-day circumstances. The changes have two main effects: first, the statutes are rearranged in a more logical order and have removed from them unnecessary detail and obsolete provisions. Items likely to be the subject of frequent amendment are also removed and will in future be dealt with by the senate by resolution from time to time as necessary. Secondly, provision is made for all categories of academic staff and the student body to have a voice in the academic affairs of the university and for a reduction in the workload of some existing committees.
At every stage in the development of the revision of the Charter and statutes the appropriate university bodies were consulted and these included the Students' Representative Council.
Part of the legislation to be repealed will be spent when it is replaced by provisions contained in the new Charter and part has become obsolete with the passage of time since it was enacted. The remainder consist of provisions which authorise grants payable to the university and which require the accounts of the university to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In future all grants made to the university

305
by the Department of Education will be on the sole authority of appropriation orders and it will be a condition of such grants that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will have continued access to the university's books and records. These changes will bring the university into line with common practice in other United Kingdom universities.
Your Lordships will see that the order will come into effect on a day determined by the "Head of the Department of Education ". If, as I believe, Her Majesty is graciously pleased to grant the new Charter at that time, it is intended that the order shall have effect from early next year. My Lords, I commend the order to the House, and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Ashby: My Lords, it is my privilege to be Chancellor of the Queen's University of Belfast, and in that capacity I should like to express my great appreciation of your Lordships' House in that you have considered this which has been put before you so that a revision of the statutes can occur.
After the noble Lord's excellent and clear introduction as to the purpose of this change, I do not need to add anything, except to say that he mentioned that it was for the better management of the university. I think that I can assure your Lordships that the university has been quite well managed on the statutes which go back to 1909. But since then there have been many changes in the constitutions of universities and it is appropriate that the statutes should be changed, although I can assure your Lordships that even as vice-chancellor of that university for nine years, I was quite unfamiliar with the statutes and never needed to use them.
There is one interesting point which the noble Lord mentioned and which may be worth putting on record for the House. Some of your Lordships will remember that in 1968 and 1969 there was a great outcry among the student body of Great Britain to have more representation in the affairs of universities. The enlightened drafters of the statute of 1909 in the Queen's University of Belfast provided that the president of the student council is ex officio a member of the governing body. That is one of the reasons why this university has never had any serious problems in student discipline or politics.
It is a very great privilege that I should be able to get up and thank your Lordships for now opening the way for the statutes to be sent to Her Gracious Majesty and, we hope, approved by her for perhaps the next 50 to 80 years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, without any of the official authority of other speakers, I should like to pay my tribute to Queen's University and to offer the opinion that anything it wants it should be allowed. It is some years since I took part in a debate there and, curiously enough, I was on the winning side. My colleague was a Protestant and we won very easily, but then we were opposed by two aetheists, which enabled us to prevail.
I have always found the atmosphere at Queen's University delightful and liberal. Later in a debate
306
there an attempt was made to kidnap me, but I gather that it was all part of a joke. It was not a particularly Protestant, Catholic or even aetheist kidnap, but just part of a student rag. So my experiences of Queen's have always been the happiest and I join those who are much more qualified to speak in saying, "Let that university have everything it wants ".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful for the reception that has been given to this order. I felicitate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his escape and congratulate him on the perception of his merits which was evidenced at the time of his kidnap. I endorse everything that he said, except that, of course, as the responsible Minister I cannot always guarantee to grant to Queen's University of Belfast everything it wants. However, I am very glad to assist it to achieve its new Charter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise Zones (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
3.28 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the provisions of the proposed order provide the framework for the introduction of enterprise zones to Northern Ireland. They shadow similar provisions already fully considered in a most interesting debate in this House on 15th October last and enacted in Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which apply to the remainder of the United Kingdom. The proposed order covers the non-fiscal aspects of the enterprise zone experiment and more generally deals with the designation procedure for establishing enterprise zones in Northern Ireland, the procedure for making modifications, the new planning powers which will be available in enterprise zones, and exemption from rates on industrial and commercial properties within designated areas.
The fiscal provisions applying to enterprise zones have already been enacted in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1980 and will apply to Northern Ireland. The provisions of the proposed order therefore tie up the loose ends in ensuring that Northern Ireland may have the opportunity of participating in the national experiment.
The provisions of the order follow closely the provisions already in operation in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are inevitably some differences arising through the different structures of central and local government in Northern Ireland. The major difference is that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is designated the enterprise zone authority, unlike Great Britain where district authorities, among others, can be invited to prepare schemes. This is because the department is the planning authority for the Province. To ensure that district councils nevertheless have some statutory say in any enterprise zone which might be proposed for its area, the department is required to consult that council before preparing a scheme. I am glad to say that Belfast City Council, within whose area Northern Ireland's first zone is

307
located, fully support the enterprise zone proposals for Belfast and have been closely involved from the outset.
I will deal now with some of the more detailed provisions of the order. Part II provides for the preparation of an enterprise zone scheme and for the subsequent designation of the zone. It also provides powers for an enterprise zone scheme to be modified. An opportunity is given to the public to object to any developments which would be permitted by the scheme if it were brought into effect. Objections must be given full consideration and the department may modify the scheme to take account of representations made.
Opportunity is provided to challenge the validity of an adopted scheme in the High Court. Providing no challenge has been sustained, the department may designate the area as an enterprise zone by order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Following designation the fiscal and rating concessions will take effect and the proposals set out in the enterprise zone scheme will take on the force of a planning permission. These measures will last for a specified period—usually 10 years—as the intention is to give an effective boost to the redevelopment and improvement prospects of run-down areas, rather than a permanently favourable tax régime. So that investors can be assured of the continuance of an enterprise zone for the full 10-year period it will not be possible to revoke the designation order.
Part III of the proposed order provides for the effect of the scheme in granting planning permission. Permission may be subject to any conditions or limitations specified in the scheme and the approval of the department where this is specifically required by the scheme. In practice, conditions or limitations will be used to enforce the necessary controls over polluting or hazardous developments. These provisions pave the way for private initiative to carry out development with the minimum of control and interference in the form of planning restrictions but without encroaching on any existing rights under general planning legislation.
Part IV of the proposed order provides for industrial and commercial premises in an enterprise zone to be exempt from rates. The Department of the Environment is required to give full compensation to district councils for the revenue thus lost to them. The draft order seeks generally to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this order. The provisions and the general scope of the order have been the subject of debate for almost 12 months. The measures contained in the order were considered by two meetings of the Parliamentary Northern Ireland Committee, and the order was debated for one and a half hours last Thursday, 26th March, in another place. I also understand, as the Minister has stated, that the Belfast City Council, within whose area the first Northern Ireland
308
enterprise zone is to be located, has been fully consulted along with industrial, commercial and other interests in Northern Ireland.
From these debates and consultations the noble Lord the Minister will be aware that there is a considerable doubt and scepticism about the overall effectiveness of the proposals to generate genuine industrial redevelopment and to promote real prospects for additional paid competitive employment. I wish to add that these doubts and criticisms are not confined to Northern Ireland alone. Other areas of the United Kingdom are even more sceptical in their pronouncements about the policy for enterprise zones.
So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I feel that the proposals would have been much more readily accepted had the order been more appropriately called, or titled, the Northern Ireland Experimental Zones for Enterprise and Urban Regeneration. That kind of label, I believe, better describes the declared objectives of the proposed measures. Along with others in Northern Ireland, I share the view that it is wrong and divisive to have selected one area only in Northern Ireland for this experiment. Why was it not possible to initiate at the same time as the Belfast enterprise zone a proposal for Newry, Strabane, or Omagh, or another such area? For as one of our top and perhaps more imaginative Northern Ireland civil servants has firmly and publicly stated,
"More for Belfast will inevitably mean less for some other places".
That sums up a form of divisiveness that can accumulate in putting forward a scheme in this sort of one area concept.
As an experiment in the ability to attract private capital for development surely much more is to be gleaned from the experience and knowledge of operating such a scheme if the measures in two distinct regions of the Province—that is, the Lagan region and the West of the Bann region—were fully monitored and operating. However, whatever may be the reservations about the enterprise zones policy, perhaps it may be helpful if I invited the Minister to give some encouragement to those who wish to approach it in a more positive manner.
Here I cite a few questions that have been raised in connection with the enterprise zone proposals. I understand that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is to set up a monitoring committee to oversee the work, and periodically report on the outcome of the enterprise zone for Belfast. May I ask the Minister: Will the Department of Commerce and the Department of Manpower Services, which must be totally involved in this sort of concept, be part of that monitoring arrangement? Will the department have an office or a physical presence in the particular zone? There are many day-to-day things that must occur that would require on-the-spot decision-making. Will the periodic review reports be made available to both Houses of this Parliament? Will the department invite other Northern Ireland district councils to put forward proposals for an enterprise zone in their respective areas, or must it be left to the Department of the Environment to initiate the proposal in the first instance?
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. David Mitchell, stated in another place on

309
26th March, at Vol. 1, No. 77, column 1178, that he proposes to set up an advisory committee consisting of—and he listed a number of appropriate interests, which included the CBI and trade union representatives. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is intended that this advisory committee should be for the Belfast zone only, or will it have a remit for the whole of Northern Ireland? May I also ask when we are to expect invitations for the nominations for this advisory committee?
Could the Minister explain in more detail precise financial arrangements for the enterprise zone? As I understand it, the 10-year period that the measure is proposed to cover will be financed out of public funds. Is it intended that the full operating costs of enterprise zones—that is, including compensation to district councils for loss of rate revenue—will, or will not, be taken from the Northern Ireland Vote? To be more precise, will the total operation of these things in any way be included in the Northern Ireland Vote? Naturally from this side we wish to encourage and support any positive measures which will mean development and the provision of competitive employment, and with the reservations I have outlined we will give approval to the order.
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear explanation of the order, which I welcome and wish every success. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I have certain reservations about its limitations and there are certainly other areas of Northern Ireland that I know where there is an urgent case for a review and for enterprise zones to be set up. However, I feel that the whole business is far too timid because at present an economic holocaust is driving its way through Northern Ireland. I do not feel qualified to discuss the effects of Government policy in Great Britain, but I can say with absolute authority that the destruction of the industrial base of Northern Ireland is rapidly reaching completion, so much so that when eventual recovery occurs in Great Britain, the industrial base of Northern Ireland will have been destroyed.
Our textile and other industries are rapidly going to the wall. We face the horrifying prospect that very shortly more people will be on the dole than in manufacturing industry. To me, that is a really horrifying spectacle. I can remember only too well when going to school on the boat from Belfast to Liverpool witnessing the silence of the shipyards and the long queues of men in misery in Belfast. Today, because of supplementary and other welfare benefits, the misery is nowhere near as great, but the demoralising effects of unemployment are appalling.
We in Ulster have always been prepared to make sacrifices as part of the United Kingdom, be it in peace or war, and to play our part. However, in the operation which is going on at present we do not stand on the same starting line. We start with unemployment at twice the level of that in Great Britain. It is therefore vital, in the special situation that exists, that emphasis is given to retaining whatever industrial base there is now in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that sufficient emphasis is being given to the retention of that industrial base. I can give an example of where failure to
310
give Government aid will cost the Government more than actually giving the aid, and the example is that of the pig industry. At one time in this enterprise zone there was a pig curing industry, so my example is not just hypothetical.
Because of the distortions of the CAP and the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC, it would cost the Government £5 million a year to subsidise the feedingstuffs of the farming industry to enable that industry, which is efficient, to compete. If that is not provided, it will cost the Government 5,000 jobs and £25 million a year. Nothing could better demonstrate the dilemma which faces the Government. As to the legality of such a payment within the CAP, one need only see what the French are doing. They have just put in £410 million, which payment they are allowing to be challenged in the European Court. By the time the court has passed its verdict the money will all have been spent and it will be too late to do anything about it.
The problems which faced the Stormont Government when it managed completely to restructure the industrial base of Ulster seem largely to have been forgotten. We must remember that virtually no investment will come to Northern Ireland voluntarily until the level of unemployment in Great Britain as a whole drops below 1 million. I am talking about it from a voluntary point of view and I am aware of the enormous and generous grants that exist. Nevertheless, one must talk in terms of the voluntary movement of investment. It costs £20,000 to create a job in Northern Ireland. Thus, if we have nearly 3 million unemployed in Great Britain by, say, September, then before we get the migration of a single job to Northern Ireland, industry in this country will have spent £40 billion. That is the size of the problem, so every effort should be committed to retaining what is left. Do I see my noble friend Lord Elton looking puzzled? Does he think my calculation is wrong?
Lord Elton: I cannot quite work out what my noble friend's calculation was, my Lords.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it was £20,000 per job multiplied by 2 million people. I think that is right.
Lord Elton: I do not think it is, my Lords, and I should tell the House that I do not intend to follow my noble friend into an economic debate on the whole of the Northern Ireland economy. Neither do I propose to follow him into the courts of Europe, concerning French or other matters, nor to dispute the courts of the Common Market. I shall make a few comments but I hope your Lordships will not think I am being churlish or wishing to gag your Lordships when I say that we seem to be straying rather beyond the very tolerant bounds of our own rules of order.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I stand corrected, if my noble friend was correcting me, but I think I have said enough to demonstrate the measure of the problem facing the Government. Indeed, the effort of the experimental enterprise zones, as they have been called, is really very small compared with the very large problem facing the Government. That

311
is what I was demonstrating. I welcome the order, I hope there will be a rapid expansion and that the Northern Ireland unemployment level will eventually drop.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his reception of the order. He doubted whether it would be effective, as did my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. That is why it is an experiment, and I am sorry the word "experiment" is not written into the title of the order. It is an experiment and it has always been heralded as such, and one expects such things to be carried out, if they are carried out properly, in an atmosphere of critical doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, suggested that it was divisive to have only one such area in Northern Ireland. I would point out to him that in this matter we have exact parity with Scotland and Wales, although our population is smaller. I think he will agree that Belfast is central to the economy, that it has a dominant industrial tradition and that it would be better to go ahead with that than not to go ahead at all. This is an experiment and it would be chancing our arm to go further.
The noble Lord then asked specific questions about the monitoring committee. Detailed arrangements have yet to be made for monitoring the enterprise zone experiment in Northern Ireland. The principal function of the committee will be to evaluate how successful the incentives have been in stimulating economic activity. As to proposals for more, and the chances of setting up others, I repeat that this is an experiment and that we shall have to see where it gets to before we decide whether we wish to go further.
Regarding the advisory council, the noble Lord referred to a speech in another place by my honourable friend the Minister responsible and asked whether the remit of the advisory council, which is distinct from the monitoring committee, would be for only the one zone. The answer is that for so long as there is only one zone, it will be; if the experiment succeeds, then we shall see whether it is necessary to go further. Invitations to sit on the advisory body will issue within the next few weeks.
As to the financial arrangements, the central Government will reimburse the district councils for the lost revenue—as I explained earlier, the revenue which will be lost from the rates—and that will be additional to the Northern Ireland programme expenditure. On the other hand, the costs of predevelopment and infrastructure works, which will be carried out by Government departments, will have to be met from within existing programme allocations. The experiment when it is running will not cost the rates, but the preparatory work, such as there is, will cost the existing programme allocations.
I have already, I think, answered my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. However, I should like to say that so often, and from so many quarters, we hear that the application of monetarism is not enough and that the application of massive grants has been tried before. Well, here is something new, and since the noble Viscount has recognised how vast are the pro-
312
blems that we face, I feel that he should welcome this proposal. I dare say that it is small at the start; experiments usually are. I think that the Spitfire was small when it was started. I do not despair that this might prove to be a very worthwhile enterprise, and I hope that your Lordships will favour this order.
Lord Blease: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the Minister whether after a year of operation of similar schemes there is not more detail of how this particular experiment is to work? With regard to the financing aspect, may I ask the Minister whether to go ahead with this particular single scheme will not entail extra work on the Department of the Environment when so much work is necessary in connection with other areas of Northern Ireland? Is this not in itself a divisive matter which will have to be contended with in Northern Ireland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not think that I can go along with the noble Lord in that respect. I consider that this is a proper use of resources. I do not think it is a disproportionate use of resources. I believe that it will bring benefit not only to Belfast, but to the whole of the Province; and that is what government is about.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supreme Court Bill [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 9 [Assistance for transaction of judicial business of Supreme Court]:
Lord Roskill Lord Roskill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 33, leave out from ("section") to ("if") in line 34 and insert ("24 of the Courts Act 1971 (temporary appointment of deputy Circuit judges and assistant Recorders)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment to Clause 9 which stands in my name and that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, who has asked me to express his apologies to your Lordships for his absence this afternoon. This amendment is one of a group of amendments which stand in our names, the most important of which is that which appears as a proposed new clause to follow Clause 143. In order to save time I should like to have your Lordships' leave to go straight to that last amendment; all the others are consequential upon it.
What lies behind the proposed amendment is this. As your Lordships will be aware, because of the enormous pressure of business in Crown Courts and in county courts it is necessary for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor from time to time to invite barristers and solicitors of the required qualification, by reason of the number of years of call or admission, to sit part-time in Crown Courts or in county courts. They are sometimes called upon to sit there for a short period of time, or for a longer period of time, or perhaps for a particular case that has not been able to be slotted in to the list of a particular circuit judge or county court judge.
Questions have arisen as to the status of those who are invited thus to sit, and the Lord Chief Justice, with the consent of the presiding judges on the circuit, and I am assured, of the Council of the Bar, which has been consulted, is anxious that the status of those persons should now become plain and be regulated by statute, so there shall no longer be any doubt about it. They have from time to time been describing themselves, or have been described, as deputy circuit judges. They are not entitled to that description, and it is right that that should now be made plain by statute.
If your Lordships would be so good as to look at the proposed new subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to follow Clause 143, you will see that the title of "deputy circuit judge" is hereafter to be limited to those who, before retirement, have held office as a circuit judge, a judge of a High Court, or even as a Lord Justice of Appeal, and who are offering their services to sit as deputy circuit judges, as, I am told, is happening from time to time in the case of both retired High Court judges and retired circuit judges.
Anyone else, solicitor or barrister, who is invited by my noble and learned friend to sit from time to time in those courts will, if the amendments are approved, henceforth have the description of "assistant recorder" and no other title. That will go back to a practice which those of us who were in practice before the Courts Act will remember; namely, that those who did from time to time deputise as recorders of cities, as they then were, were called assistant recorders.
This is a small change, but it is, I am told, one which those upon whom falls the day-to-day administration of justice in the lower courts are most anxious to secure and pass on to the statute book in order that there shall no longer be the complications which have arisen hitherto and which, it is hoped, will be cured. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to. I think that the other amendments referred to by my noble and learned friend are, in addition to Amendment No. 1, Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I confess that during the long period when we have had the benefit of the assistance of counsel in the work of the circuit courts and other courts there has been anxiety about their description and status. If it be the case that the Lord Chief Justice and others think that this is a matter which needs statutory remedy, so be it. I certainly do not quarrel with the designations that are proposed. The high office of assistant recorder was my initiation into the judicial process many years ago; and I see present my noble and learned friend Lord Shawcross. He will remember those far-off days, which bring back many happy memories. I shall await with interest the observation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to whether he is happy about this proposal. On the face of it, I see nothing wrong with it. I am only a little surprised that it is thought to be necessary.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, may a magistrate intervene? This proposal seems to me to require a
314
little more explanation. If the people whom we are discussing are sitting with the full powers of the court in a particular situation, it is rather curious that they are not entitled to the appropriate description. Perhaps we may draw a parallel here. If a deputy chairman takes over from a chairman, he is appropriately described. I think that to a layman what is proposed here seems rather obscure and not very reasonable.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I did not propose the amendment, but I am advised that it is totally unexceptionable, and I am also advised to accept it. Apparently it will give satisfaction to those to whom the expression "deputy circuit judge" more properly applies, and I am told that it is desired by the profession. But I regard it largely as a matter of label.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked for a further explanation. I am not sure that I am capable of giving one. I was asked by the Lord Chief Justice to move this amendment, since he was unable to be here, and I was assured by him that it is desired by the profession and by those who have held the office of circuit judge. I am not sure that there is a complete analogy as between a chairman and a deputy chairman and a circuit judge and a deputy circuit judge, because in the one case a deputy chairman is a person who holds a recognised office, while a so-called deputy circuit judge is merely someone who temporarily has a particular status.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Powers of High Court exercisable before commencement of action]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 25, line 39, leave out ("(i)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 2. With this amendment, may we consider Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7? It will be remembered that at the Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, tabled an amendment which was designed to have a result similar to—and I hope be identical with—the provisions which are contained in these linked amendments. They make parallel alterations in Clauses 33(2) and 34(2) of the Bill relating, respectively, to orders for the production of documents before the commencement of proceedings and orders for the production of documents by strangers to the proceedings. The amendments ensure that in cases where the court decides that the documents ought not to be produced to the applicant himself they will be produced in every case to his legal advisers.
I gave the noble and learned Lord an assurance at the Report stage. I hope this carries it out, although it follows the effect of the amendment he tabled rather than the words he used in the speech that he made. The difference is a small one and I think important, but of no serious controversial content. It is that the ultimate control for the order remains, in the amendments which I have moved, with the court, rather than resting with the solicitor to the party. Your Lordships will remember that both at Committee stage and on

315
Report we discussed this at somewhat greater length, and I think it was generally agreed that there was a class of case in which it was proper to withhold, for instance, a medical report from the patient himself, though he were a party to the litigation, because it might contain a prognosis which would be detrimental to both his peace of mind and his state of health. I do not think I need say any more than that this represents the best endeavours that I can use to carry out the intention of the noble and learned Lord on Report and to fulfil my obligation to him. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having met the point that I raised at an earlier stage of the consideration of this Bill, with strong representations from the Law Society that it should be done. The noble and learned Lord has identified the point we are after; namely, above all, to protect the position where a medical report may contain a gloomy prognosis of a terminal condition in circumstances where the doctors and all concerned might think it would be undesirable, in the course of litigation, that that should be disclosed to the party concerned. On reflection, I respectfully agree that it is right that ultimate control should remain in the court, and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the care that has been given to the point that has been raised, and for the way in which it has been dealt with.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I wonder whether I could take the opportunity to ask one fairly simple question of the noble and learned Lord. The words used here are "legal advisers". I wonder whether there is anything in this Bill which defines the meaning of the phrase "legal advisers". Whether there is or is not, does it in fact mean the person's solicitors; and, if it does mean the person's solicitors, why do we not say so? Could it in fact have a wider meaning than that, and could it embrace somebody else—as, for example, an amateur adviser, or possibly even learned counsel?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is sprung on me at slightly short notice. If I may deal with that question, I would assume that it meant the solicitors on the record and, if there were counsel instructed, also the counsel, whose advice the client and the solicitor would be expected to seek, if not actually take. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Front Bench opposite has any better view than that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Indeed, my Lords, I have no better view than that. All I can say by way of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Foot—a most eminent solicitor—is that this was the phraseology in the Bill as it was considered at the earliest stages, and the astute attention that the Law Society pays to legislation as it goes through the House satisfies me that there is nothing wrong with it so far as the solicitors' branch of the profession is concerned. I cannot help further than that, I am afraid.
Lord Foot: My Lords, may I have the leave of the
316
House to say that if this is done on the recommendation of the Law Society it must necessarily be right?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 25, line 40, leave out ("(ii)")
Page 25, line 41, leave out from ("order") to end of line 42 and insert—
("(i) to the applicant's legal advisers; or
(ii) to the applicant's legal advisers and any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant; or
(iii) if the applicant has no legal adviser, to any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together and speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. They are all consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move Nos. 3 and 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power of High Court to order disclosure of documents, inspection of property etc. in proceedings for personal injuries or death]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
Page 26, line 15, leave out ("(i)")
line 16, leave out ("(ii)")
line 17, leave out from ("order") to end of line 18 and insert—
("(i) to the applicant's legal advisers; or
(ii) to the applicant's legal advisers and any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant; or
(iii) if the applicant has no legal adviser, to any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68 [Exercise of High Court jurisdiction otherwise than by judges of that court]:
Lord Roskill Lord Roskill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 46, line 29, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Roskill Lord Roskill moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause:
(" Amendment of Courts Act) 1971
. For section 24 of the Courts Act 1971 (deputy High Court and Circuit judges) there shall be substituted—
"Deputy Circular judges and assistant Recorders.
(1) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that it is expedient as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this section in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Crown Court or a county court or official referees' business in the High Court, he may—

(a) appoint to be a deputy Circuit judge, during such
period or on such occasions as he thinks fit, any person who has held office as a judge of the Court of Appeal or of the High Court or as a Circuit judge; or

(b) appoint to be an assistant Recorder, during such
period or on such occasions as he thinks fit, any
barrister or solicitor of at least ten years' standing.

(2) Except as provided by subsection (3) below, during the period or on the occasions for which a deputy

317
Circuit judge or assistant Recorder is appointed under this section he shall be treated for all purposes as, and accordingly may perform any of the functions of, a Circuit judge or a Recorder, as the case may be.
(3) A deputy Circuit judge appointed under this section shall not be treated as a Circuit judge for the purpose of any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the appointment, retirement, removal or disqualification of Circuit judges, the tenure of office and oaths to be taken by such judges, or the remuneration, allowances or pensions of such judges; and section 21 of this Act shall not apply to an assistant Recorder appointed under this section.
(4) Notwithstanding the expiry of any period for which a person is appointed under this section a deputy Circuit judge or an assistant Recorder, he may attend at the Crown Court or a county court or, as regards any official referees' business, at the High Court for the purpose of continuing to deal with, giving judgment in, or dealing with any ancillary matter relating to, any case which may have been begun before him when sitting as a deputy Circuit judge or an assistant Recorder, and for that purpose and for the purpose of any proceedings subsequent thereon he shall be treated as a Circuit judge or a Recorder, as the case may be.
(5) There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament to deputy Circuit judges and assistant Recorders appointed under this section such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and to speak to Amendment No. 10 at the same time. I have already explained, I am afraid at some length, the purpose of Amendment No. 9, and Amendment No. 10 is entirely consequential.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Roskill Lord Roskill moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 106, line 34, leave out paragraph 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 113, line 15, at end insert—

(" 33 Hen. 8. c. 39

Crown Debts Act 1541.

The whole Act.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This, my Lords, is a pure piece of statute law revision. The Crown Debts Act 1541 is to be inserted in the repeals schedule. The reason it is to be inserted in the repeals schedule is that it is spent. Owing to the industry of my staff I could give quite a lengthy and possibly quite interesting piece of research about its history and provisions, but perhaps the House will be content if I say that the case for repeal has been put to the Senior Master, the Queen's Remembrancer, the two revenue departments, the Treasury Solicitor representing all other Government departments and to those representing the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Queen's private estate. They all agree to the repeal, and since the Act is spent the Queen's formal consent to the repeal is not required. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, had we "world enough, and time ", and were there not a great deal of further business before the House, I should have liked the noble and learned Lord to tickle our palates a little on the historical background to this ancient piece of legislation. I always find the repeal of Acts that have fallen into desuetude of great fascination, but I resist the temptation to press the suggestion at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 113, line 29, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Vict. c. 99.

Evidence Act 1851.

Section 6.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 12. This amendment effects another small piece of statute law revision. It repeals a provision in the Evidence Act 1851 concerning orders for the inspection of documents in the common law courts. The necessary powers are now adequately conferred by other provisions. Again, I am prepared to enlarge upon this fascinating topic, but will not do so unless pressed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roskill Lord Roskill moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 118, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 49 to end of line 16 on page 119.
Page 119, line 51, column 3, at end insert ("Section 15.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, may I move both these amendments together? They are consequential upon the main amendments, to which I have already spoken.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and in doing so I should like to thank all noble Lords who have helped to improve the Bill and for the kindly reception which it has received. I would particularly mention the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Foot. Many of my noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches have been extremely helpful at different phases of the Bill and I am grateful to them all.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, there is no doubt that this is a useful piece of consolidation as well as of law reform. We were told early in the consideration of the Bill of the immense pressures on the courts at all levels and in particular on the Court of Appeal both criminal and civil divisions. I think the proposals in the Bill for making a fuller use of judicial manpower will be of great assistance in the administration of the courts. I have the assurance as far as the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is concerned that the practice always of having a Lord Justice sitting on the court will be maintained. As the noble and learned Lord,

319
Lord Roskill, pointed out, it always has been so.
There is little doubt that the changes that are proposed, at any rate for the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, are intended to improve the administration and the running of that division and it is very good to know that all those concerned, from the highest to the lowest level in that division, have indicated their enthusiastic support for the changes that have been introduced. These changes in the law take a long time to accomplish and I think it is right to express our gratitude also to the members of the staff of the Lord Chancellor's Office and to the draftsmen who have laboured long to achieve the result of bringing the Bill to this point of near approval in your Lordships' House.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it is obviously a very important Bill and one which should be much supported by all who practise the law, apart from those who administer it. I congratulate my noble and learned friend on his having got time out of the Government in order to be able to present this important Bill to us. There is one matter in the Bill, one change in the law, which I must confess that I approach with a certain anxiety. It is that part which provides an extra restriction on the right of a party in a claim in respect of libel to trial by jury. It was the subject of a short debate on March 2nd moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill, supported by the Lord Chief Justice and accepted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But the Bill now before us provides that an action for libel will be tried by jury unless the court is of the opinion that the probable length of the trial makes the action one which cannot conveniently be tried by jury. That is new. Apart from the principle, I find that I am concerned over the wording which leaves, as it does, no discretion, as I understand it, to the court and which applies the sole criterion of convenience.
There was this short debate on 2nd March when some reservations were made by the only participants who are actual practitioners of the law, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on the extension into crime, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, really on the substance. But the effect of the change is a further step on the path towards eliminating public participation in the administration of justice. In that respect I think it is a matter of regret. I appreciate as well as anybody in this House how immense is the burden on the public of jury service. I do not underestimate for a moment the difficulties and problems which are created for people who are drawn by lot to sit on a jury. The disruption and problems of their business life are immense. Hitherto in many criminal cases, fraud cases, other modes of trial have been canvassed—that there should be a judge sitting with assessors. But they have not yet met with approval.
The laudable purpose behind all this is to save time and cost. Time and cost, economy and convenience are of great importance in the administration of justice. They mean much, but they do not mean everything. Clause 69 reduces the probable participation of the public. I suspect that it has arisen from a particular action for defamation, then current but now concluded. There is the old adage that hard cases make had law.
320
I hope—I say this with deep respect—that there has not been an over-hasty reaction to a unique trial. I appreciate that the amendment was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill, supported, as I have said, by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Master of the Rolls and accepted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—people I have known throughout my professional life and for whom I have the greatest respect. They are authorities of great distinction and wide judicial experience, and I know that they have been motivated by the desire to protect the public from a prolonged disruption of their lives if they should be selected to serve on a jury.
But I would ask these distinguished judges to consider another point of view. I cannot pretend to any judicial experience except as a recorder—not a deputy assistant, but a real recorder—of Salisbury some 20 years ago; but it is limited to that. But I have had 35 years of continual and uninterrupted practice at the Bar, the last 22 years in silk. Save for my six years as a law officer, I believe that in almost every one of those 22 years I have appeared in civil trials tried by jury. Therefore, I can claim to have seen much of the work of civil juries; that is, trial cases of libel, slander, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and such cases. My experience is that it is very rarely that a case is long. The Lord Chancellor's department can obtain the statistics, but my personal experience is that they are very rarely long cases. I recall one which lasted three and a half weeks. There is the occasional such case; there have been others. But they are a handful. The average case duration is usually less than one week.
Therefore, the case on which this amendment is based is unique. I am certainly not going to discuss the merits but your Lordships may or may not know that it was a case where the defendant sought, as they claimed, to expose a world-wide organisation or movement in which one side said it was of a religious nature and the other side said it was of a political nature. Once the pleadings in that case were closed its length was inevitably massive, but though it was a matter of private dispute between private rights, it was of great public importance.
I am not going into the estimate that was made or the length of time. I think there has been a misunderstanding of that. But it was a case which imposed an enormous burden on the jury, ameliorated by great efforts by the judge and the Lord Chief Justice to do everything possible for and on behalf of the people who had by chance been brought into that court. But it poses the question—and this Bill now poses the question—of what other tribunal could so authoritatively decide the issues in such a case. The decision in that case was one of 11 citizens of unknown backgrounds, unknown religious beliefs, unknown worldly or spiritual experience, and of different ages. Some were obviously younger than others. Compare that situation in a case of that kind—and many cases of libel and defamation involve political or religious matters—to trial by a single judge, with his known background, with his known experience, with his known religious persuasion, with his known age, having to give a reasoned judgment. Not that he would be—and I do not suggest it for a moment—biased by any of those matters. But that would be the position. Compare that to a jury with, as I say, their

321
unknown background bringing in their findings. I have no doubt that certain cases are pre-eminently cases for trial by jury.
If this Bill were law then there would be no jury in that case. Obviously a case which last 100 days would not be convenient for a jury. As I understand it, there is no discretion to allow a jury and therefore it would be trial by judge alone. In my submission to this House I suggest that that is very undesirable. I think that there are some issues which it is unfair to the judges to have them decide, and it is unfair to the public to have a single judge decide an issue which involves political and religious matters such as very often arise in libel actions.
Therefore I wonder whether that is a good case on which to base a change in the law. Jury service is a public duty, a public duty which rests upon employers as well as on employees. It should be better remunerated, of course. That is the first thing that should he done. It is an infinitesimal cost and juries should be better remunerated. The participation of the public in the administration of justice is in my view paramount for the proper administration of justice.
While I repeat my personal respect for the distinguished sponsors and supporters of that part of the Bill, I say that I hope another place will look at this very carefully and very coolly. Of course there are reasons and arguments for the amendment which was put into the Bill which is here before us now. Of course they are honest, respectable and persuasive reasons motivated by the desire to relieve the burden of members of the public whose misfortune it has been to be chosen by lot to do this particular task. In other countries they used to have the draft. People were chosen by lot for the draft. That was a great misfortune. I believe that the inconvenience to individuals is overborne by the paramount interest of the public which calls in certain cases for an absolute right to a trial by jury. It is a great British liberty though it may, as I say, impose hardships. We should mitigate that hardship by providing proper recompense for persons who have been called to do their duty, but we should not in my view diminish that right. It is a right which rests not only in the parties but also on the public. Some newspapers, as has been said, believe that you should not have jury trials in libel actions. Others disagree. There is a powerful Leader in today's Times to that effect.
This Bill will go forward to another place, as of course it should. But all I seek to do is raise a voice expressing concern at one part, but not an unimportant part, of this very useful, very important measure. I urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—and nobody is more conscious of any encroachment on public or civil rights—when the Bill goes to another place to reflect again upon the wording and the principle of what I believe to be an important change in the law, and one which I feel needs further examination.
4.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish me to congratulate my noble and learned friend on having emerged unscathed and in such good form from an experience in comparison to which the London Marathon appears to pale into insignificance. Since the case could theoretically or
322
actually be the subject of an appeal, I may not mention it. However, I am sure that the House are delighted to see my noble and learned friend back again and will be rejoiced to hear his eloquence among us once again. I do not altogether agree with what he said. It is true that this amendment was not put down by me; it was put down by the Lord Chief Justice, moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill and supported by the Master of the Rolls and I accepted it. I take full responsibility for accepting it.
Incidentally, we have had this little argument once before and I should like to remind my noble and learned friend of it. This is not the first time that I have heard this speech. I heard it first in another place. I should like to remind him of the occasion that I first heard it. It was during the Labour Government and Mr. Roy Jenkins was then the Labour Home Secretary. I was the Conservative shadow Home Secretary (if the word "shadow" could ever have applied to my somewhat robust and portly figure!). In those days, and far more serious than this, the suggestion was made by the Labour Government that majority verdicts should be the order of the day in criminal cases. I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said about criminal cases when we were on Report.
Both my legal colleagues—one of whom was my noble and learned friend—originally endorsed the suggestion. The other colleague was Sir John Hobson, upon whose soul may God have mercy. They both ran out on me at the last moment. I promised to deliver the goods and I did deliver the goods. I was right because no one in the world would have wanted to go back to the period in which majority verdicts were not at all possible. I shall come back—because it is extremely germane to this topic—to the reason why they would not go back. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will remember the case of Hain. He was acquitted. The first majority verdict was one of acquittal and so was Mr. Hain's. If he had not been acquitted—and it was quite right that he was—he would have had to stand trial again.
My noble and learned friend, quite rightly, stressed the inconvenience to the jury of sitting down for 100 days and having to decide a case. I speak of juries with the utmost respect because, although now I have not anything like the recent experience of my noble and learned friend, I have seen them over the past 50 years on a great number of cases. It is a heartening and almost humbling experience to see how earnestly they try to do the right thing. They very often come to a robust verdict which would not be the same as that of a judge, particularly in criminal cases. I am very far from speaking with disrespect for them or underrating the fact that a public duty demands that they should do the service.
However, there are one or two other things that I should like my noble and learned friend to take into account, because the inconvenience to juries—although it is terrific—is not the only factor in this matter. Just consider what would have happened in the particular case to which my noble and learned friend has referred: if only one juror fell out the defendants could have agreed to go on, but suppose a second or a third juror had fallen out on the 98th or 99th day; the parties would have had to start de novo unless they were prepared to go on with a minute jury.

323
That is only one of the problems. There could have been a disagreement. I am not saying that there was likely to be in the case in which my noble and learned friend was such a notable advocate. But if there had been a disagreement they would have had to start afresh and another £250,000 and another 100 days of judge-time and jury-time would have had to be thrown away before they got at any kind of result. This is not simply a question of saving the jurors a great deal of trouble. There is a very great deal more to it than that. It is a question of the efficient administration of justice, and that is what led my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice to put down his amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, to move it.
Moreover, I must say to my noble and learned friend that there is another factor in these very long cases which worries me a great deal. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, an assurance on the question of criminal cases, from which I do not resile. One of the virtues of the jury is that it is a random, or more or less random, selection from the public. If you once get a case which is going to last for 100 days at least, excusal is granted very generously on business and other grounds, and you cease to have a jury which is a random selection from the public. You get a jury who are able to give a hundred days of their time, spread over much more than a hundred days in fact, because of the week-ends in between, to the total trial of the case, with the prospect of a new trial if they fall out. It may be that after the plaintiff or the defendant knows he is going to lose he thinks he need not consent to going on with 10, or whatever number it may be. You have to chance your arm on a disagreement and a misdirection, because if there has been a misdirection and it goes up to the Court of Appeal there has to be a new trial then. Where are you going to get?
Let me tell my noble and learned friend a little story. Let him remember 1966 when there were three defamation cases that I remember, which are reported in the books. They were all cases to which a jury was necessary and I think would continue to be necessary if this Bill is passed in its present form. I will refer to just one of the three—I usually cite them all because they are all very moral tales—and that was a case brought by, I think, a cosmetic surgeon for either a libel or a slander reflecting on his professional reputation. That in the end went up to the Court of Appeal three times and had to go down twice for a re-trial. Surely there must come a point when the natural conservatism of the legal profession and the perfectly legitimate prejudice in favour of juries in civil cases must give to way common sense. At an earlier stage of this Bill I said something to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the subject of common sense, and he said he was speaking for the Senate and Bar Council as well as on his own behalf. But I really do urge the profession on this—I love Conservatism with a big "C" but you can be too conservative with a small "c", and I suspect that my noble and learned friend is being a little too conservative with a small "c" on this occasion.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Water Bill
Read 3a, with the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.]
Baroness White: My Lords, I was not able to be in the House for the Second Reading of this Bill and, as this is the first occasion since I ceased to be a member of the British Waterways Board and can therefore speak without restraint, I felt I could not let this opportunity pass without making some reference to Clause 1 of the Bill, the principal clause. It was referred to at some length in the brief Second Reading debate on 3rd March. I do so partly because I have great sympathy with the points made then by my noble friend Lord Underhill. I felt that we should not allow this Bill to leave this House without perhaps putting into better perspective the problems which are evoked by this clause than the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was able to do on Second Reading.
As the noble Lord, I am sure, must recognise, I have the greatest respect for him, but plainly the sooner he gets into a narrow boat and goes up one of the waterways the better—because I fear he does not perhaps entirely appreciate the financial situation in which the British Waterways Board, which has financial responsibility for most of the major waterways in this country, has found itself since it took over its current responsibilities in 1968.
I myself was a member of the Board from 1974 until last summer and therefore I know from first-hand experience the extreme strain which has been placed upon the Waterways Board, both on the members and, much more, on the professional staff which is engaged upon the maintenance of this very fine system of waterways. But it is an ancient system and it needs constant attendance. In fact a point was reached not so very long ago when some of the professional staff on the engineering side took the unusual step of saying to the board that they were in danger of asking professional people to risk their professional integrity by requiring them to operate a system which in some respects was becoming so far below standard that a situation could arise where their professional competence could be called publicly into account.
The Bill that is about to leave your Lordships' House provides for some addition to the borrowing powers of the board, and for that naturally one is grateful; but the point which I think ought to be brought to your Lordships' attention is that during the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, seemed to indicate that with these additional resources there was not very much to worry about. I think it would be unfortunate if the House was left with that impression. In his reply to the debate, the noble Lord said that the board would not be under such great strain as my noble friend Lord Underhill had indicated because, for example, only two tunnels on the system were likely to remain closed for the rest of this year. Someone simply reading this debate might suppose that things were not really too bad after all; but those

325
of us who know something about the system know that one of the tunnels which was mentioned—the Blisworth Tunnel on the Grand Union Canal—is an absolutely key point in the entire cruising system of this country. If it is closed for the cruising season—and I understand that it is likely, for lack of resources, to be closed not just for one but possibly even for two cruising seasons—it means that the northern and the southern parts of the country, and particularly the London area, are cut off from one another. The only way by which those who wish to take a cruising holiday can reach the North of England from the South is by using the South Oxford Canal. That means they will for other reasons have difficulties, because there we have not a tunnel but a reservoir, and there are no resources to put it into proper repair. In turn that means that the water supply is diminished and the number of those who can safely be allowed through the canal at any period of time is also reduced. Should we have a dry summer there will be very serious danger of the South Oxford Canal being under such restrictions as regards water that there could be serious dislocation of the cruising possibilities this season. This may not happen—I hope it will not—but it is a distinct possibility and it is directly due to lack of resources to repair the reservoirs.
So far as the Blisworth tunnel is concerned, the British Waterways Board has to use some of the money which it is now graciously permitted to borrow physically to relocate boats—those big canal cruisers—by road, so that they are parked either north or south of the tunnel according to the best judgment of the operators. These canal cruisers involve considerable investment. There are the private persons with private boats, but the tour operators—those who are commercially interested in this growing recreation—will naturally in the circumstances hesitate to go on investing. If they cease to make these investments, or if the private person says, "We are having too many interruptions on this system. Let's go off to the French canals and sail on one of them", then the board will be unable to earn the revenue from this type of use in order to service the loans which have been permitted under Clause 1.
I would therefore urge the noble Lord who speaks for the Government to recognise that, where you are dealing with a historic system such as the waterways of this country, you have not only the normal annual recurrent expenditure—which is under some pressure, but one cannot complain unduly about that because everybody is under some pressure—with the normal capital expenditure on renewing plant, dredgers, lorries and so on, but there is also this absolutely vital element of what is really long deferred capital expenditure. That is where the pressure is coming on the board—on the reservoirs, the bridges and the tunnels. These are all major elements in the whole system, which I think were not, if I may very respectfully say so, fully covered in the discussion on Clause 1 of this Bill at Second Reading. As I say, because of my very long experience as a member of the board I felt that it was only right to put this matter into proper perspective.
The other matter to which I must just refer in passing is the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the Fraenkel Report. He suggested that my noble friend Lord Underhill was impatient in saying that
326
there had been any dilatoriness about that. This is not the occasion to go into the full history of the Fraenkel Report. All I can say is that it is now 11 years since the Waterways Board indicated what work had to be done. For various reasons under various Governments there have been endless delays on this. To suggest that a little more patience is all that is required is something which I am afraid anybody who knows the full history of this matter can only smile at very wryly indeed. There have been few situations in public administration that I know of where there has been hope deferred so frequently as over the work dealt with in the Fraenkel Report. Perhaps I should leave it at that, but I repeat that I should have been failing in my duty if I had not tried to put the first clause of this Bill into fuller perspective.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, to put the record straight I think I probably ought to say that the practice, where there are no amendments down for Third Reading, is that any debate takes place on the Motion for the Third Reading and not on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass—
Baroness White: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I was at fault.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I say this not in any sense of criticism of the noble Baroness, because I know that there was a little bit of changeover at the Woolsack at the time. I say that just to set the record straight, so that the precedents are right for the future.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hope that I may be given leave to be out of order as well—
Lord Denham: The noble Lord is not out of order.
Lord Underhill:—because I should not like this Bill to go away without saying one or two words upon it. First, I shall not reiterate what my noble friend Lady White has said, but I am glad that she has had the opportunity to say it, in view of her experience. It was my intention to comment that when we discussed this Bill in Committee so few noble Lords were present, because it was during the supper break, that it would be good to have these points made with a larger attendance, because the British Waterways Board is very important to us; but maybe I was being over-optimistic.
I emphasised on Second Reading and in Committee that while the primary purpose of the Bill is to increase the borrowing power of the board, some of us were greatly concerned about the situation of the board's finances. Without elaborating more upon it, seeing that I am speaking almost out of order, I hope that notice will be taken of the comments made by my noble friend Lady White, which supplemented the points that I made in Committee.
The only other point that I would make is that I am very pleased that the Government have kept to their undertaking, and have introduced a new clause into the Bill to deal with compensation for burst water mains or other leakages from waterways. I know that this will present problems with other statutory undertakings, but that must be faced as we go along. I hope

327
that the consultations, which the Government have explained will be taking place with various authorities, on the possibility of also looking into the question of compensation for leakages from sewers, will be successful and that, at a not too distant date, we may see legislation upon that matter as well.
It would be remiss of me if I did not congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on handling this, I think his first Bill, from the Front Bench. I think he has done it with great efficiency and, if I may say so, also with kindness to us all. He has been very attentive in sending letters to me after each stage of the Bill, in which he has elaborated upon points which were raised in discussion. Therefore, I should like to congratulate and thank him for the way in which he has handled this Bill.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot pretend that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, was quite a bolt from the blue—but it was tinged with purple—because I had a tiny bit of warning on it. But, even so, I am afraid that I am unable at this precise moment to give her the satisfaction which she obviously wants and, indeed, deserves, because I fully appreciate, in spite of what appears now to be, perhaps, a little bit of complacency in my Second Reading speech, that these are very serious points indeed, and I would not differ from her on that.
But she did not comment on one tiny sentence that I also said in my Second Reading speech, which was that everything that we are talking about boils down to one simple five letter word—money. I appreciate that it always has, but we are currently in a not very happy position as regards money. I said on Second Reading that, when the economy improves and the money is there, it will, in part, obviously—because it cannot be given in toto—be given to the British Waterways Board for exactly the purposes that she would want. I am still convinced that I can perfectly fairly give that promise from this Dispatch Box this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made some very kind remarks about me and I am very grateful to him for them. I should like to say—not in return, because I was going to say it, anyway—an especial word of thanks to him. Although we have not agreed on everything in this Bill, I am none the less very grateful to him for the constructive way in which he has debated all the provisions in the Bill.
I know that he would have preferred the Bill to include various provisions on sewers, including escapes of substances from them. As I explained in Committee, however, this is too complex a matter to deal with in this Bill, but the issue is definitely not a "dead duck". My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to meet a delegation to discuss the situation and this will shortly be arranged. I hope, none the less, that he feels, as we certainly do, that we have now had an adequate opportunity for debate, and that the Bill which we are about to send back to another place has been significantly improved by the addition of the liability provision which he mentioned.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Mortgaging of Aircraft (Amendment) Order 1981
4.50 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment order for which I seek the approval of the House will make it no longer necessary for the mortgagor to submit and sign a notification of discharge before the Civil Aviation Authority enters a discharge of a mortgage in the Register of Aircraft Mortgages which is maintained by the authority.
The Register of Aircraft Mortgages was set up under the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972. This order was made under Section 16 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968. This amendment is a relatively minor one and it is being proposed at the suggestion of the Civil Aviation Authority following representations to the authority by aircraft mortgagees who have encountered problems of varying kinds.
Because it was thought that the mortgagor would be the person principally interested in the discharge of the mortgage, Article 9 of the 1972 order requires him to submit and sign the notification of discharge. In practice this has caused problems, especially in cases where the mortgagor has ceased to have an interest in the aircraft by the time the mortgage has been discharged. In a number of cases, for example, the mortgagor has defaulted, the mortgagee has exercised his right of sale and the mortgagor has refused to sign the discharge notice, so that the aircraft has continued to be shown on the mortgage register as the subject of a mortgage. In another case a mortgagor before going abroad asked a dealer to sell his aircraft and to use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage. This the dealer did, but the mortgagor could not be found to sign the discharge of mortgage. Accordingly, the buyer had great difficulty in reselling the aircraft.
The Civil Aviation Authority sees no reason why it should have the signature of the mortgagor before entering a discharge of a mortgage in the register. What is important is that the authority should have the confirmation of the mortgagee and appropriate supporting documentation to show that the mortgage has indeed been discharged. The proposed amendment provides for this.
As I have said, the Civil Aviation Authority has received a number of representations from mortgagees who have encountered these problems and they have suggested that the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972 should be amended. The authority has undertaken that if the amendment order is approved, a leaflet drawing attention to it will be sent out with all notifications which the authority makes under Articles 7 and 8 of the order. Notifications under Article 7 go to interested parties to tell them that a mortgage has been entered on the register. Notifications under Article 8 go to interested parties to tell them that a particular entry in the register has been amended.
Finally, I should add that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and the only comment that the committee has made is that in Article 1 the date for coming into operation has been left blank, contrary to paragraph 1 of Statutory

329
Instrument Circular (81)1. I apologise to your Lordships, and to Members of another place, for this error. The date to be inserted in Article 1 should of course be the same date as is shown at the top of the order: that is, 1st May, 1981.
Given that slight error and the remarks which I have made in presenting the amendment order to your Lordships, which have of necessity been a little longer than I would have wished because it is a detailed matter, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining the purpose of this order. It certainly opens up a whole new world. The kind of situation which the noble Lord has described is, sadly, one which is all too familiar in the housing market, as we found last summer when we discussed the Housing Act. It is certainly a revelation to me to find that there are not only absentee landlords but absentee owners of aircraft whom, apparently, it is impossible to find because they have disappeared to some kind of "offshore situation", which is the euphemism used for these kinds of owners.
We shall not make any difficulties over passing the order. I am sorry that it is defective in one way, the date not having been inserted. However, this defect will no doubt be remedied. I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, has the order been passed by another place? Secondly, how many cases of this kind have there been every year which have given rise to this order? I do not expect the noble Lord to tell me exactly, but I should be grateful if he could let me know the average number of cases which have been encountered.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his kind remarks and for forgiving the clerical error regarding the date when the amendment order will come into operation. The noble Lord asked me two questions. I am informed by my noble friend the Minister that this order has been passed by another place. The second question which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me was one which I had intended to inquire into. I understand that the number of cases which have occurred over the last few years have averaged between five and 10. If, therefore, we say that they can be counted on the fingers of two hands I think we shall be reasonably accurate. Perhaps, however, I may inquire into the precise number of cases which have occurred and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Forgery and Counterfeiting Bill [H.L.]
4.57 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 8 [Meaning of "instrument"]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("character") to ("any") in line 8 and insert—
("(aa) any stamp issued or sold by the Post Office;
(ab)")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to speak to these two amendments together. They deal with a small but, I think, important point. Clause 8 contains the definition of the word "instrument" around which the whole of the bit of this Bill which deals with forgery is centred. There is an omission which we ought to put right.
Noble Lords have only to be reminded of the post which they receive every day to recall that, for every one of the letters which bears a now very expensive stamp, there will be at least one which is franked by a machine which is licensed to be used by the Post Office and for which the user pays in due course the necessary sum back to the Post Office to recompense them for not actually using a postage stamp. It is absolutely necessary that we should cover the use of these franking machines, and the forgery of them, as well as the forgery of an actual postage stamp. That is what these two amendments do.
There are two other things which I should say. First, your Lordships will wonder what the clause is going to look like when I move an amendment to put in paragraph (aa) and paragraph (ab). The answer is that when it is reprinted, we shall have in fact a list of four things which will be an instrument: a document, a stamp, an Inland Revenue stamp, and any disc, tape, sound track or other device, which are now in paragraph (b). So there will be paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
As to Amendment No. 2, the renumbering will take place on reprinting. The last point is that the word "and", at the end of the first line of Amendment No. 1, should not appear on the Marshalled List. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to move Amendment No. 1 with a manuscript amendment, as it were, omitting the word "and". I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as this helpful Bill is intended to deal with every situation where the offences of forgery and counterfeiting might arise, it is obviously desirable that any relevant instrument or document should be covered. I am sure that this is a helpful amendment.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend, which, as he has explained to your Lordships, is designed to make it clear that all kinds of postage stamps, including those that are printed on to envelopes by franking machines, are covered by the Bill. This is a welcome clarification and the Government fully support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) A mark denoting payment of postage which the Post

331
Office authorise to be used instead of an adhesive stamp is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as if it were a stamp issued by the Post Office.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Laboratory Animals Protection Bill [H.L.]
5.1 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licence for use of animals in laboratories, etc.]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("for the advancement of knowledge or").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill at this stage and they are of two kinds. The first kind, which is represented by this Amendment No. 1, is to remind us of the problems of this Bill. When we had finished examining the Bill in Committee upstairs, we came out of it with a Bill which had been agreed by the various noble Lords who sat in that Committee and who represented very different points of view—in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think it was agreed among us all that this Bill would be a definite improvement on the present situation and the best agreed Bill that we were likely to get. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that there were some of us—and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will be saying this—who felt that on both sides we had surrendered some important points of principle. So long as the Government do not produce their own Bill so long, for various procedural reasons, will this Bill come before your Lordships time and again in order that we may jog the Government along and, if necessary, pass our own Bill ourselves. I certainly believe that it is a good Bill and that the Government are not likely to produce anything much better, but I think it is right that your Lordships—and indeed the general public—should be reminded that although there has been general agreement that it should be put forward, the Bill does not represent the basic views of all members of your Lordships' House or of all the noble Lords who have been involved with it. So, as I have said, one kind of amendment, including this Amendment No. 1, is designed for that purpose. Of the other amendments which I have tabled, some, including particularly Amendment No. 3, are genuine efforts to improve the Bill within the frame
332
work of the agreement, and I rather hope that that one at least will be accepted.
To return to Amendment No. 1, it is a matter of basic principle that we now raise. Among the objects for which it is said that the Secretary of State may grant licences authorising the use of living animals for research and other procedures, two basic objects are stated: One is for the health or welfare of mankind or animals and the other is for the advancement of knowledge. There are some of us who think that the second purpose is really not ethically satisfactory at all. We think that while man has the power and indeed the duty to use animals for alleviating the distress of man and animals, he equally has a duty not to inflict pain. I realise, of course, that this Bill is not just about the infliction of pain; very often it is about not inflicting pain, but man has not the right to inflict pain or to breed and keep animals specially for experiments and to kill them in the course of those experiments merely for any lesser purpose than the relief of suffering of man or of the animal kingdom. The idea that merely the enlargement of knowledge is a sufficient step to treat animals in this way is something that fills a lot of us with repugnance and fills a great many of the general public with repugnance, as public opinion polls have shown and many of us think that it should not be legislated for in a civilised country. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should like to begin by apologising to the Committee for not being in my place when the Motion to move the House into Committee should have been moved. A sudden acceleration in the tempo of the business on the Floor of the House coincided with a blackout in the public information service, and I am greatly obliged to my noble friend Lord Houghton for intervening on my behalf. Perhaps I may just respond in general terms to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on the obligations of those who worked together as colleagues in the Select Committee of the House. By all means let us discuss matters which are on our minds in Committee. Everyone is entitled to have second thoughts. It is quite a little while since the Committee reported unanimously, but the Bill as it stands represents a fragile concordat between two groups with a century-old tradition of mistrust between them. My noble friend Lord Houghton and I have worked for quite a number of years in trying to resolve those feelings of mutual distrust and to get people working and talking together. In a sense, the unanimity of the Select Committee and the compromises there to some extent symbolise his and my hopes for the future. If we renege on that unanimity, then one factional amendment—and, as I said at Second Reading, anybody can improve the Bill from his own point of view, and I say, "factional", not, "factious"—will generate another and the end result is that our handiwork is undone. Therefore, I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to withdraw his amendment, when it has been discussed and debated to his satisfaction, as I on my side shall ask leave in due course to withdraw my own amendments for the same reason, notwithstanding their merits.
To return to the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in the first place from the stand-

333
point of the technique of drafting an Act of Parliament, if one studies a text book on how this should be done, one is taught that the drafting of a Bill proceeds from the general to the particular, starting with the Long Title of the Bill, going on through the early clauses and finally reaching the more detailed provisions of the Bill. So when it comes to the construction of those details and the interpretation to be put upon them, you can trace your way back, as it were, through the early stages of the Bill to the Long Title, each bearing on the other and on the construction of particular clauses. Clause 1(1) conforms to that model, but the proposal for amendment would narrow it and be in contradiction of subsection (2)(a)(iii), which refers to the purposes of the biological sciences. One ought to be able to trace one's way back from the purposes of the biological sciences through the content of knowledge to the Title of the Bill, the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill.
The amendment contains to some extent an internal logical contradiction in its form as drafted. How can one promote health and welfare without first acquiring the knowledge of how to do it? This takes one back to the structure and history of medical science, in so far as studies of abnormal and normal functioning go forward in parallel, each throwing light on the other, not necessarily coincidental, either as to the persons who do the research or as to the place where it is done or the time when it is done. If this amendment were really held in any way to govern subsection 2(a)(iii), it would in fact wreck medical science and would wreck the Bill.
I do understand quite clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has in mind. I think his picture is of someone irresponsibly curious who is just interesting himself in what happens if you do something horrible to a mouse, and so he carries it out. I assure your Lordships that that really is not the intention of the Bill as worded, and I do not think it is in any sense of the word a serious danger. In that spirit I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to withdraw his amendment when, as I say, it has been debated to his satisfaction.
Lord Hill of Luton: May I add a word in support of what my noble friend has just said. Lord Beaumont of Whitley seemed to assume that research for the advancement of knowledge could have and would have no relationship to the treatment of disease. That seems to me to be nonsense and dangerous nonsense. Although I did not intend to speak, as I listened to him my mind went back to my undergraduate days and three men: Lord Adrian, whose research on nerve transmission was research as a physiologist in no way intended or related in his mind to the treatment of any particular disease. It was research of a fundamental character which has revolutionised neurology over the years. A physicist named Aston discovered some isotope qualities. He had no thought of the use of isotopes in his mind. They have proved of profound importance in the years that have followed.
What about Gowland Hopkins, whose discovery of vitamins was in no way related to the treatment of rickets or other forms of vitamin shortage; it was research for the advancement of knowledge, and no man can say that that advancement will not in subsequent years advance the knowledge of medicine and
334
the treatment of disease. The noble Lord's amendment is based on a fundamental flaw, and I hope he will withdraw it. For, as my noble friend said, it would be destructive of much valuable research into the causation and treatment of disease, and it would stand in the way of much that is done to save life and to heal disease.
Lord Energlyn: May I join in this appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont? If we remove this phrase, it does seem to me it would discolour the Bill. As one who has been active in this field, I appeal to him. If you delete this phrase it means that you are casting an almost jocular attack upon the work of pure scientists. It is in the study of the behaviour of animals, as my noble friend has just said, that we can make some very fundamental advances. If you carry this to the logical conclusion that even bacteria are animals, then it would seem to me clear we are really talking a lot of nonsense. It would seem to me to be somewhat carping to remove this phrase, and I would strongly appeal to the noble Lord to leave the clause as it is.
Lord Adrian: I would like also, if I may, to add support to what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, for the kind thoughts and memories he had of my father. Nearly a year's work in the Select Committee went to creating this compromise and agreement that is embodied in the Bill. I would support the pleas that this Bill should remain more or less as it stands at the moment. I would especially ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, not to press his amendment to Clause 1, to leave out "the advancement of knowledge". As has been said, this would strike at the very heart of the solution that the Select Committee achieved, and it was a solution that was based on wide permitted purposes and close scrutiny of individual projects.
I know that this amendment springs from the noble Lord's deep concern for animal welfare, but the removal of "the advancement of knowledge" as a legitimate purpose would very much transform this Bill, and I know it would transform also the attitude of scientists to it; it would transform it from acceptance and support to opposition.
I would argue also that I do not think that the amendment, if passed, would have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, intends. It seems to me that the effect of the amendment is to remove the power granted by that clause to the Secretary of State to license work for the advancement of knowledge. If as a consequence of the passage of this Bill the 1876 Act is repealed, which is what is contained within this Bill, that would remove the illegality of doing an experiment of itself, so that an experiment for the purposes of the advancement of knowledge, though it could not be licensed by the Secretary of State, would have to be cruel within the meaning defined in the 1911 Act in order for it to be illegal. That Act appears to me to allow necessary suffering, as also operations performed with due care and humanity. So it is not at all clear to me that all experimental uses which could be said to be for the advancement of knowledge would in fact be contrary to the 1911 Act. And if that were the case then the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to remove from Home Office control, or from the control of the Secretary of State

335
and the Home Office inspectorate, those experiments which were done for the purpose of the advancement of knowledge. This, I think we would all agree, would be a most unfortunate consequence, because it was agreed by all of us on the Select Committee that what was needed was control and inspection of both the purposes and the execution of experimental work on animals.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Quite frankly, I do not think there is much point in debating the merits of this amendment. We are in rather a peculiar position this afternoon, because we are considering the Committee stage of a Bill which has already passed your Lordships' House in the last Session; this is the second time around. But there is more to come. Although this is the only Bill before the House at the present time, and it is the best Bill there is, we are hoping that there is another one coming before very long, and that will be the Government's own proposals.
Eight members of the Select Committee are present. We are almost a meeting of the Select Committee with a few observers. If we go on, all that we shall do is to give your Lordships a glimpse of the nature of the discussions that took place in the Select Committee. That would he interesting, edifying and it might even be amusing, although there really was not very much fun on that Select Committee. However, if we are to examine the merits of the amendment to delete something from Clause 1(1) then we must look at that in the context, and the structure and provisions of the Bill.
If we get a Bill from the Government which is different in structure and a different kind of Bill then what is in Clause 1(1) will have to be related to that new kind of Bill. I shall try to illustrate what I mean. Hitherto, the whole of this field of operations has been governed by a law passed in 1876 which provided immunities. The echoes of yesterday's debate are ringing in my head when we were talking about the relative advantages of giving freedom by immunities or freedom by positive statutory provision. We saw in our debate yesterday on the trade union immunities how the area of activity had been widened beyond anything contemplated by Parliament at the time the 1906 Act was passed. In just the same way the area of activity in this field of animal experimentation has gone far beyond anything contemplated by the authors and the Parliament which enacted the 1876 Act.
The Home Secretary has some criticisms of the structure of the Bill. We have heard them and we may hear more of them in a moment or two. But the great difference in principle between one school of thought and another on this Bill is how much should be written into the statute law and how much should be left to the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation. The Home Office has been saying, "You have left too much to the Home Secretary. He does not want all this responsibility. Indeed, you have left so much to him that he could even extend the law rather than implement it". The Home Secretary, as I understand it so far, said, "I should like to see some things in the statute law. Parliament must decide. It is not proper for a Secretary of State to decide some of the things
336
that you have given to him to decide by power of statutory instrument".
Therefore, this debate in a sense puts us all in a false position. We are not, if I may say so with great respect, doing business this afternoon. We are still waiting. When we come to the question of whether the clause shall stand part, both here and a little later on, we shall be needling the noble Lord the Minister of State at the Home Office to tell us more about where we are going and how soon we shall get there. That is the important issue today and not, if I may say so, the particular wording of the Bill in front of us.
However, your Lordships will be aware of the kind of difficulties that we shall be in later on—and I am sure about this—when we convert the law from immunities to positive provision, because the more positive it is the more argument there will be on the meaning of words and how much you say and how you define what you mean, which has not been attempted in this field any more than it has really been attempted in the field of trade union law to the extent that some people would now wish. So I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who was a member of the Select Committee—and we all went through it together—will not press his amendment. I certainly echo what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said. However, I shall not be drawn into a business discussion on whether this should go in any Bill or whether it should not. I think that that dispute—if it is a dispute—will have to be fought out when we come to the substantive process of legislation, and we are not there yet.
So I sincerely hope that we shall not amend this Bill at all—not even with the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. None of them in my view should be pressed this afternoon. In that way we shall have the Bill going forward on this occasion in exactly the same form as it went forward previously, representing the maximum measure of agreement on the Select Committee. We presented it together. We stand by it together and we should see it go on together. That, in my view, is how it must be dealt with as of now. We may have to part company later on if there are provisions in the Government Bill which excite serious controversy, but we have not arrived at that moment yet and in any case far be it from your Lordships' Committee to decide an issue of this importance when almost the majority of noble Lords present were members of the Select Committee.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Peart: I should like to thank the two noble Lords who are involved in this matter. I expected the same speech from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, as the one which he made previously, or a similar speech, and also a similar speech to the one which has been made by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think that the logic of their argument inevitably is that it would be wise for our noble Liberal colleague to withdraw his amendment, because I think that it would spoil the Bill and spoil the atmosphere in which we are debating this limited clause. So from the point of view of the Opposition, I would advise my colleagues to support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and also my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I should like to make a brief intervention. I should feel extremely disappointed, despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if I were to feel that there was absolutely no chance whatever of making any progress. It would be extremely disappointing, both as a supporter of the Government and as a member of the sub-committee, if I were to feel that the Bill in its present form were a total nonstarter. We know that the Government have their eye on the Council of Europe and we intend to listen with extreme interest to my noble friend the Minister. But, despite that, the Bill itself has great merits and can be pursued with a certain sense of realism and dedication.
Lord Ferrier: Falling into the category of those whom the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, described as "observers", I feel that I should say something. I am certainly an observer but I am also an observer who, like many other noble Lords not on the committee, is deeply concerned. I feel that what I have said in the debates during the course of this Bill can stand, but the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has put into a concise form my feelings about this matter. I could never find myself differing from an urge to forward knowledge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): After the valuable work of the Select Committee which produced the Bill standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and which is before us in Committee today, of course I accept that some detailed discussion is valuable. Indeed, it would be undesirable if the Bill went through without some discussion in Committee in your Lordships' House. I also realise—as, I think, do all Members of the Committee—that the Bill contains an element of compromise. That was inevitable. However, I was surprised to see the Marshalled List of Amendments, for there are amendments on that list which give expression to what I imagine are the basic views of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
If I may, I should like to mention three of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. There is the one which we are now discussing, which would prevent experiments for fundamental or pure research. There is Amendment No. 6, which would require the elaborate screening process of Clause 3 to be used to decide on all cases, and not just on cases of severe pain. There is Amendment No. 7 in the noble Lord's name which would make it mandatory that in each case the licensee must personally see to it whether the whole procedure or experiment could be carried out by alternative means.
To add to that the noble Earl, in whose name the Bill stands, has tabled amendments which would considerably widen the grounds on which a certificate may be granted, by extending those grounds to any other legislation, including foreign legislation. I raise this point now not only because we have spoken, as we very often do on the first amendment, a little widely, but because those amendments would substantially alter the character of this Bill.
If amendments of this nature represent the basic views of some noble Lords, then agreement on the way forward will be even more difficult to achieve than I
338
had imagined. That leads me back to the amendment which we are, in fact, discussing. It is an absolutely fundamental amendment. Your Lordships, who have knowledge and experience of these matters of a kind that I can never have, have already spoken. I would only say that, by seeking to raise a general barrier to the grant of licences for the advancement of knowledge, this amendment would obviously create very great problems for research in this country. I, therefore, add my voice to what other noble Lords have said, and say that I hope that we will consider very carefully before putting such an amendment into the Bill; but on wider grounds I hope that we shall also consider very carefully how this amendment and other amendments affect what I had supposed was an element of agreement on the drafting of the Bill which is before us today.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am surprised that so many noble Lords have urged me to withdraw this amendment when, in fact, in my opening words I announced my intention to do so. I see no reason to change my mind. Of course I shall beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw this amendment. But I think that this little debate has been worthwhile for a number of reasons. I was impressed by the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and I must admit that the major point he made had not occurred to me and, I imagine, had not occurred to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, either, as he did not raise it in debate. It is an interesting point and I shall obviously look at it.
However, on the main point of principle there is a divide, a divide on which I certainly hope I have some supporters in your Lordships' House, even if they have not been very vocal today; a divide, on my side of which I undoubtedly have a very great many people in the country—people who are not necessarily cranks, people who feel instinctively that to treat animals in less than their fullness as God's creatures for our benefit or for some abstract good or semi-abstract good, such as the increasing of knowledge, is not a justifiable matter.
It is a very strong, moral and ethical divide, and nothing that is said in this Committee about the agreement to which we have quite rightly come about the best possible Bill that we are likely to get and that therefore we must support, can obscure that divide or should allow us, whichever side of the divide we are on, for a moment to relax about the ethical importance of what we are doing. Whether or not noble Lords agree with me—and clearly most noble Lords do not—it is a matter of the highest ethical importance that we should not treat animals in less than their natural "animality"; that we should not cause suffering; that we should not breed animals in order to use them for experiments and then use them in experiments; that we should not do this for anything less than the highest possible reasons.
Where the line between those highest possible reasons is drawn is a difficult matter to decide, and your Lordships will draw it depending upon your philosophies, your religions, your ethics and everything else. But do not let us pretend that it is a minor matter or that it is a matter merely for cranks. It is an extremely important matter, and it is a matter which I think that the population as a whole regards as important.

339
Having said that, I return to what I first said. Of course I stand by what I said. It is our business in this Parliament not just to hold ethical arguments, though that is an important task that we perform. One of our purposes here, and our purpose this afternoon, is to progress with a Bill on which we can agree and which improves the law. I entirely realise that we will do this by sticking to the text that we have before us, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("products") to ("; and") in line 24 and insert ("or substances").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name, which is, if you like, my contra riposte to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley; when I saw that he had put down an amendment to Clause 1, I put down an amendment to Clause 2. Of course, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if we start amending something at as early a stage as Clause 1, inevitably we alter the character of the Bill. It is part of the general philosophy of draftsmanship that the most general features of the character should come at the beginning.
This particular amendment has the effect of making safety testing irrelevant to the main purposes of the Bill by rendering the particular provision more general. Safety testing does not have to be contained within the other provisions of the Bill if this amendment, which of course I shall not press, is approved. But I think it is a point that justifies my raising it which the Government must have in mind when they produce their own Bill. We must resolve this question politically: Who is to be responsible for laying down the specification for safety testing?
At the moment we have one lobby—the environmental lobby, the safety and health at work lobby, and so on—pressing for safety testing to be done, and another lobby pressing for the restriction on the use of animals for safety testing purposes. When you get two groups of people in opposition to one another in that frame of mind, the solution must be a political solution. It cannot be a legal solution. Therefore, I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to bear this matter carefully in mind when it comes to drafting the Government Bill.
The insertion of the word "substance" is in respect to the Medicines Act, so that the words "product" and "substance" are both used as they are in the Medicines Act. I think that that usage should be respected in this Bill because they have different senses. In rather over-simplified terms, a product is what you make to sell the public; a substance is what you buy to put in the product. In homely terms, and perhaps rather over-simplified, sugar is a substance; a jelly baby is a product; but the one is incorporated in the other. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that I do not have to go on saying the same thing, and I am sure that your Lordships wish to be spared my saying the same thing, but I have an approach to this Bill which
340
is quite clear and obviously differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for example, in the speech he made a few minutes ago. If we were discussing a Bill that is going to make progress; if it were a really business, legislative session, then we should be having many more amendments than these, and battles would have to be fought on the Floor of the House. We should not only require the rest of today; we should require two days of next week. I see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, looking apprehensively at stages of the Bill that go on day after day. When I see the noble Earl I think that we have left the "snares" and now we are dealing with the "delusions". Certainly one of the delusions today is that we are doing business. We are not.
Therefore, while it is useful to have an exchange of views on these matters, it would be a mistake to think that what is decided this afternoon prejudges subsequent events. I would have a lot to say on amendments that are down, including this one, if we were really putting things in the Bill, or deciding whether we should put things in the Bill or not, but I can only repeat that we are in this peculiar position this afternoon of dealing with a Bill which is really a curtain raiser for the Bill to come. Whether it will be a stage full of pygmies or just a lot of illusionary matter when we come to the Government Bill, I do not know; but anyway we are waiting for it to come, and this is a curtain raiser to it. It might have been different, but this is how it has turned out.
We have to be especially careful on Clause 1 not to enlarge the scope of the clause beyond what was agreed in the Select Committee. That was a delicately balanced operation, and I think highly successful. Whether we all stick together like a kind of bulldozer when the time comes to consider the Government's Bill remains to be seen, but I was hopeful that we would act in concert so far as ever we could to show that this was the line of compromise and of sensible solution to the dilemmas of this legislation.
But it may be that there will be tugs at the coat of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; it may be that there will be tugs at mine. I am much more likely to get denunciation than tugs at my coat, but the noble Earl moves in a more temperate climate where they do not do that sort of thing. In the animal welfare movement they treat you rough, believe me. That is what I may have to go through in due course if the compromise seems to offend the hopes and expectations of many people for this future Bill. I am sure that after that my noble friend Lord Halsbury will feel disposed to withdraw his amendment. I think that we have some important matters to discuss when we come to clause stand part.
Lord Energlyn: I hope that the noble Earl will not withdraw his amendment, because in context with the previous amendment we ought to be clear about what we mean by "substances" and "products". The noble Earl has given one definition, but perhaps an anecdote here may not come amiss. When we were trying to discover what was the fundamental chemical reaction that caused lung tissues to be transmuted from cellular tissue into fibre we had to take the decision that the substance that we were dealing with,

341
not a product, was a mineral. That mineral was quartz.
Quartz, when dissolved, is silica; a highly toxic substance. What I am now going to say may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because the animals that were engaged in this experiment were human animals. Human beings had to swallow quartz to find out what the reaction would be. We did this—I declare an interest—and we found that by swallowing pure quartz we were engendering certain areas of toxicity but, more important than that, we were able to demonstrate that the silica was the primary rogue substance in transmuting cellular tissue into fibre. From there a whole range of new discoveries took place.
Not to bore your Lordships but just to give one recent development in this connection, when a transplant, say, of a kidney goes wrong you are in this urinary area of the human animal; then a whole mass of minerals—which are not products but they are substances—were formed. By the study of these we were able to indicate to the pathologists what additional materials they would have to add to the human animal in order to effect a good transplant. I would appeal to the noble Earl to retain this amendment, because the use of the term "substances" is more effective than "products".
Lord Belstead: It is a matter of the greatest importance that those who are representing Her Majesty's Government in the discussions on the draft convention should bear in mind what is said in the debate on this Committee stage when they next go to Strasbourg in just over a month's time. I am certainly bearing very much in mind that we have to await the final draft of the convention before we can see what is to be done—this is the argument I have put again and again to your Lordships—so far as our domestic legislation is concerned.
All I should like to say, therefore, is that I know that what has been said by the noble Earl, and by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, and other noble Lords, on this matter will most certainly be borne in mind by those who represent the United Kingdom at Strasbourg. At the same time I should also like to say that the relevant provisions of the draft European Convention, so far as this matter is concerned, have been most carefully drafted up to date with the moral issues raised by using animals to test cosmetics very much in mind. This is a matter to which I am certain we must continue to give the most careful attention in this country.
The Earl of Halsbury: With my coat tails torn in one directon by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and in the other by my noble friend Lord Energlyn, I think I must obey the Newtonian principle that action and reaction are equal and opposite and maintain the position which I started from, which is that this amendment was an illustration of the fact that if you desert the principles of unanimity that we had on this Bill, then an amendment from one of the interested parties merely provokes an amendment by the other. I think that is all we need to say. We have had a useful discussion. The last thing I would wish to do would be to use the need for unanimity to stifle discussion, or anything like that, but I think I
342
have said enough and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert—
("No applicant shall be deemed competent unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of State he or she is appropriately trained in animal care and, where it is necessary for the purposes of the Act, sufficiently trained in the techniques of analgesia, tranquillisation, anaesthesia and euthanasia").
The noble Lord said: Of the amendments standing in my name, this is the one that I particularly urge on the Committee as an improvement to the Bill, and I do so with some hope of acceptance. I need not speak to it because it explains itself. The only argument against it is if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, says it is unnecessary in that it deals with a matter which in any event would be taken into account. Long experience in your Lordships' House leads me to think that, while something may be contrary to what the draftsman thinks, it is usually good to include a matter which one wants underlined, even if one could hope to rely on there being an understanding of what one hoped to add. In other words, even if something is implicit, it is sometimes a good thing to make it explicit, and I am not entirely convinced that the matter is implicit in the Bill. It seems that the Bill could be administered, as drafted, with a certain laxity in this area of analgesia and that it would be happier for all concerned, not least the animals, if the amendment were made. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: Again I feel, as the Peer in charge of the Bill, that I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on this one, and once more I hope he will do what he said he would do—I have no need to underline it—and withdraw the amendment in due course, after we have had a reasonable discussion of it. I do not feel the amendment takes us further than subsection (2)(b), which ties competence and responsibility to procedures, already takes us.
The amendment tells the Secretary of State how to do his job. This is again one of those acts of judgment that must continually be performed by those who are collaborating on the draftsmanship of a Bill of this kind—having given the Secretary of State a job to do, just how far is one going in the direction of telling him how to do it? The reaction of the man told to do a job must depend on the epoch in which he is fulfilling his instructions, and the method of discharge may change with time. The proliferation of detail in the amendment is not really complete, and that has its dangers. Why, for example, is training in surgery and training in opsysis not included in the recital?
One of the dangers of this sort of treatment of the subject is that the result may fall foul of the legal principle called exclusio alterius, on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us a fascinating exposition in relation to another matter earlier this year. The effect of it is that if you use a general term and then illustrate it by particulars which fall under it, you exclude all the other particulars that fall under it. The effect of the amendment might be to fall foul of that and exclude all other factors from

343
consideration. I merely say that that could be the case. I am not a constitutional lawyer or draftsman, but I have had to take advice on these points from time to time and that is the advice that I am given.
The other point that does not seem satisfactorily attended to is the differential training requirement of animal technicians and operating scientists, which one must suppose will be a function of epoch and context. I have in mind the fact that this sort of Bill is not politically popular. It will be when, finally, we enact something on the initiative of the Government that this Bill will have played a useful part in, as it were, giving everybody a run over the course. But we must not expect to get another Bill for another 100 years. We are operating now under a Bill which 100 years old and nobody will want to touch the Bill which the Government finally approve. Therefore, we must strike a right balance between doing what we provide for in general terms, and filling it up with a lot of petty detail on how a person is supposed to discharge his responsibilities now, in this day and age, as opposed to 50 years from now, when facilities and responsibilities may be altogether different. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Energlyn: I join the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in asking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to reconsider the amendment and to ask whether it is really practicable. If you go into a laboratory concerned with, say, the study of the chemotherapy of carcinoma, you have a variety of techniques which you must use and one of them is not anaesthesia as Lord Beaumont seems to visualise it. To illustrate the point, if you try to give a rat a chemotherapeutic substance which you are hopefully expecting to have an ameliorative effect on a cancerous growth, it is extremely difficult to give it to the rat orally because of the dimensions of the throat. Indeed, we spent ages trying to find a method of getting a compound which I had produced into a rat. If we had had to operate under this amendment, we should not even have been able to begin that experiment without seeking the permission of the Secretary of State.
Lord Belstead: I shall not repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, have said. In essence, the noble Earl said that the amendment was teaching the Secretary of State how to do his job, with the advice he also received from the inspectorate. I need not add to that. It might be of interest to the Committee to be reminded of the present state of the draft convention; Article 22 is worded in much the same way as Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill. In other words, the convention as drafted now is requiring procedures to be performed only by competent people, but it is leaving it open as to how such competence is to be judged. There is another article in the draft convention, Article 24, which as drafted will require each contracting party to make provision for the education and training of persons carrying out duties, including supervisory duties, under the convention to ensure that animals used for procedures receive the care and treatment they need.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will be the first to be seized of the fact that in the United Kingdom we
344
do not have the power to dictate what shall be taught in our education system. However, we already make provision for education and training in the sphere of the care and treatment of animals used for experiments, and the courses will be familiar to many of your Lordships, so I shall not go through them except to say that they are to be found in the North-East Surrey College of Technology, Surrey University, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and there is of course in-house training to be found as well.
The conclusion which the Government have reached on the amendment is very much the same as that which the noble Earl expressed. We have considerable sympathy with the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in putting the amendment forward, but we disagree that it is desirable to tie the definition of "competent" to certain specific courses and lines of training, and, on those grounds, I too hope he will not press the amendment.
Lord Airedale: If my noble friend is being told that the amendment is teaching the Secretary of State how to do his job, then I would say that that argument could be used against any section of any Act of Parliament which provides that the Secretary of State, before taking action, shall have regard to various matters, which are usually set out. Such a provision is very common in a clause in a Bill; and it is not really a question of teaching the Secretary of State how to do his job.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that this afternoon we want to discuss whether or not an amendment is correctly technically drafted. I am sure that this amendment, so far as its objective is concerned, is drafted exceedingly well. However, as I understand the amendment, it is not drafted in such a way as to require anyone to have regard to certain factors, but rather it lays down a duty. It states:
"No applicant shall be deemed competent unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of State"
he or she is sufficiently trained in certain techniques. That lays down a duty, and the Government see very great difficulties in that.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I cannot pretend that I am happy with the responses that I have received. The noble Lord the Minister, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, seemed to me to be putting up the kind of smoke screen barrage against amendments which one is used to encountering—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Is there no such thing as a smoke screen barrage? Well, noble Lords know what I mean—but really there is such a thing as a smoke screen barrage. One can lay down smoke shells in front of a position, and that is exactly what the noble Lord and the noble Earl were doing. I do not think that the arguments they used are of tremendous import. Nevertheless, I take seriously the fact that for various reasons they do not wish me to proceed with the amendment and that they do not wish to accept it.
The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, in his speech

345
referred to some most interesting points which horrified me. I think that before we finally get the Bill that we are promised we should look at the very interesting points the noble Lord raised. I was certainly under the illusion that my amendment, if it was anything, was a work of supererogation, and if I am told not that it is not necessary, but that such an amendment in itself would be a bad thing, then clearly we ought to look at the problem again. Perhaps this is the first major point of substance to have been raised this afternoon. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall refuse to grant a licence for any procedure on any living animal where in his opinion, on the advice of the Advisory Committee, the purposes of the procedure or a sufficiently similar result can he achieved by alternative means").
The noble Lord said: Once again I shall be very brief. This amendment, which ties in with a number of amendments to Clause 3, is concerned with writing into the Bill the requirement that animals should not be used where material can be tested or experiments carried out by other means. I think that there is no one in the Chamber—at least I hope that there is not—who does not have the greatest of regret about what can be only the sad necessity of animals being used for experiments. In that situation it seems to me right that wherever possible we should lay down an absolute duty to explore all alternative methods, and I believe that it is right to spell this out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I feel that there is still much work to be done on the very important question of alternatives. I do not think that it would be desirable to add the words of the amendment to the Bill but I must say that the substance of the amendment concerns a great many people who are trying to find alternatives to the use of living animals. So far as I can tell, remarkably little attention is being given to this question where one would expect it to receive constant attention—that is, in the laboratories and similar places. We are told that living animals are so expensive that cost alone is compelling researchers and experimenters to look for alternatives to living animals.
However, the departmental responsibility here is very sloppy indeed. This is simply because Governments in the past have not given sufficient attention to the welfare of animals as species. The Home Office, that pudding of a department with ingredients from almost every corner of society and of social and civic responsibilities, does not have responsibility for dealing with the question of alternatives. In fact, it does not have very much responsibility for experimentation on animals at all, apart from the granting of licences, and in my opinion the way in which licences are granted leaves much to be desired. By the leave of the Home Office we happened to see samples of licences that had been granted. Oh dear! I did not like much of what I saw there. However, I shall not be drawn into that aspect of the matter.
346
The responsibility for alternatives is apparently that of the Department of Education and Science. I know this because I well remember raising the matter in another place at one time when I received a complete brush-off on the subject from the then Minister of Education and Science, who happened to be Mrs. Thatcher. I was told that the question was not an important part of what the Department of Education and Science was interested in.
We tried to get some form of foundation to devote itself to finding alternatives. We also tried to get Government sponsorship for research into alternatives, but none of our efforts succeeded. Just about the only organisation that is really devoting itself expressly and persistently to finding alternatives is the body known as FRANE. It is a voluntary body which receives funds from a number of diverse sources. Some of the funds come from commercial enterprises which are very much engaged in the use of living animals for their own laboratory purposes and which want to find alternatives, in particular in connection with the so-called LD 50 test, which uses an enormous number of animals for the testing for toxicity purposes of various kinds of substances. If alternatives could be found for testing toxicity without using living animals, enormous savings would be made in the numbers of animals involved, and an enormous amount of discomfort and suffering to animals would be avoided. There is one respect in which the line taken by the Home Office on the granting of licences and on keeping animals free from severe pain does not apply when using animals during tests of substances for toxicity and other ill-effects. The animals suffer considerable pain and under the LD 50 test there is no way of relieving them of it.
This is a very important matter, and I am sure that when we come to our substantive discussions it will occupy much of our time. So I endorse completely the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to the question of alternatives. I merely add this to the list of matters which the Home Secretary will have to consider when he comes to draft his Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: I delayed my contribution because I thought that in the course of discussing alternative methods we might drift a little towards a Second Reading type of debate. Perhaps I can assist the Committee by bringing us back to the substance of the amendment. First, there is here some loose drafting, which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has not noticed. A procedure and a result are two entirely different things; they are different kinds of animals. One is consequential upon the other; they therefore cannot be similar. That is a drafting point which I can see the noble Lord has taken, and I will not refer to it any more.
The policy thrust of the Bill is such that the intended obligation lies upon the Secretary of State already. Again, it is a question of good judgment as to how far you go on hammering the nail home into the wood. Clause 4, on sponsorship, requires a knowledgeable sponsor who is an expert in the particular field of this experiment to certify just the condition that, again, Lord Beaumont wants to put into the Bill when an application for a licence is made. So the matter is already covered by Clause 4.

347
Then, Clause 6(6)(c) requires a licence-holder to make a statutory declaration in his annual return to the effect that he has in fact used alternative methods where they are available. Lastly, the words "any living animal" particularise the animal, and they appear to make the advisory council responsible for detailed decisions on which it is the business of the inspectorate to judge. The inspectors and the sponsor's certificate are the real safeguard here, so you have a double safeguard. Do you really want a third? My judgment would be, No, you do not. I would, therefore, as previously, ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: May I make one point? I understand there has been a great advance regarding tissue. If you want to experiment on animals, I understand there are now tissues which can be used for certain experiments which are still carried out on animals. I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he would impress on the Secretary of State to give every encouragement, by financial means if possible, to scientists who are experimenting in the use of tissue, because I am sure that if the Government were really to support that it would be a very popular move among a great many people.
Lord Belstead: If I may respond to the question which has been asked of me, the Government accept the desirability of alternative methods being used whenever practicable; and when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, chides the Government with distancing themselves from this matter and not becoming involved in it, I think the noble Lord may have temporarily forgotten that an exhortation was sent out in December 1978 to all licensees under the 1876 Act, urging them to consider and, if practical, to adopt whatever alternatives are available to them in their particular field of work. That exhortation has been repeated in each year since then, in 1979 and in 1980. It is not sent out by the Department of Education and Science; it is sent out by the Home Office on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We do care, and we are continuing the system which was started by the previous Government in this respect, although I must admit to my noble friend that we are not accompanying the exhortation with financial inducements. I had not really intended to speak on the amendment because, for reasons which have been deployed by the noble Earl, I do not think the Government would wish to support the amendment as it stands, but I have ventured to make this intervention in order to put what I have just said on the record.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Since there seems to be mutual chiding going on, and my name has been mentioned in that connection, may I say that I was fully aware of the circular issued. Indeed, I had something to do with its being issued. We urged this upon the Home Office. I only say—there is no strong note of criticism in this regard—that telling people to use all the alternatives they know of is not quite the same as being involved in finding alternatives which people might use, because so many times when you urge people to use alternatives they tell you there are
348
not any, or the alternatives will never substantially reduce the use of living animals. There is no way out, we are often told. So all I can say is that this is a field of endeavour in which the Home Office should begin. They have not even started on it, really, yet, because the Department of Education and Science, when it comes to the scientific side of the matter, have the responsibility. The Home Office can urge licence-holders to do anything without having immediate responsibility for the technical side of what it is that they are doing. I put that in only as a note of selfdefence against what the noble Lord was saying.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I think this particular amendment has in fact produced a useful debate, but I accept the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that in fact this amendment is unnecessary because it is in substance covered by the Bill. I do not, as a matter of interest, accept his argument about the drafting, for reasons which I shall be happy to explain to him outside and will not weary your Lordships with, but as to the argument about it being unnecessary I think that probably is so, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This may be a convenient moment for me to raise one or two general questions relating to future progress on this Bill. We have been told that we are waiting for the final draft of the Council of Europe, and they have been at work for some long time. They met in January, when they had a drafting committee trying to finalise the draft which has been under consideration for so long. They failed to agree on the final draft, and another meeting is to be held on the 12th to the 15th May. I think the Home Secretary and the Council of Europe members concerned hope that at the May meeting they will reach finality, though there are still one or two very important questions outstanding. I do not dwell on them for the moment, because one of them arises directly on Clause 3 of the Bill; but what I am asking the noble Lord the Minister at the present moment is how we are going to proceed. The question I am really raising is: What consultations do the Government have it in mind to hold with the various sections of interest in this difficult problem?
When Governments are preparing legislation, especially if it is lengthy or complex, or where strong feelings are being held in particular sections of our society, or where there are special interests involved, they have consultations about it with the representatives of the bodies concerned. Are there going to be any consultations with anybody when the Government come to prepare their Bill? Have they made any progress? Have they yet to begin? I fear that when you are waiting for something the temptation is not to start on it until you have got it; and then, when you have this something, you begin, you find how much more difficult it is than you thought, and you get well behind in the timetable. Is that going to occur?
The Select Committee, it seems to me, provided the

349
Secretary of State with a most valuable survey of the whole field in evidence, and presented the Home Secretary with this Bill, which represented both in structure and in content the best that we could do. The structure of the Bill is very important indeed, as I said earlier in the debate this afternoon, because we are completely changing the approach to this problem in terms of legislation. Under the 1876 Act you almost plunged into Section 2 to see what was unlawful. You were therefore dealing with immunity problems right from the beginning. Here we have a set of positive provisions, an attempt to say what people may do rather than to tell them what they may not do. We are embarking on a complex exercise. It would be of help to those of us directly concerned to know how the Home Office are proposing to get through this period of the formulation of legislation and the preparation of a Bill to put before Parliament.
Another question I should like to ask—and perhaps I am too premature in asking this question—is this. Where is a Government Bill going to start? Will it be in this House or another place? Are we to wait until the House of Commons has had the Government Bill and has mulled over it for weeks and then find we have a Bill arriving which has obviously gone through the hands of inexperienced people? We are, after all, the experts here. They are all here. You only have to look around to see who they are, serving on the Select Committee, probably a committee composed of more highly-qualified people than any Select Committee that could be gathered in another place on this or any other subject. They are politicians in another place. We are dealing with these matters constructively.
We saw on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill the enormous value of dealing with a subject which is non-political but nevertheless contentious in a nonpolitical way, of wide significance and requiring a great deal of experience and knowledge. I thought that was one of the most rewarding experiences anyone could have in this House—to go through all that and put a Bill together and feel that a pretty good job was made of it in the end.
Are we going to have the benefit of that experience in connection with the Bill that the Government will bring forward? I do not like to remind the Government that they still have some election pledges to fulfil. They are probably sorry they have so many of them. One day the Social Democratic Party will teach the lesson of the folly of political manifestoes to the other parties by not having one of their own. All sorts of interesting possibilities will arise shortly on the political scene. I was reading about one of them only a few moments ago. Seriously, could we be told—we seem to be shadow boxing all the time—how we shall get to grips with this? Are we wasting our time at the present moment waiting for a Bill which does not come, waiting for a convention of the Council of Europe which may or may not help very much when we have it?
The language of the convention will not be the language of an Act of Parliament. It will be more loosely drafted, in terms which will be more general in character. They will lack definition. This is the way of the European convention procedure. We shall
350
have to translate that when we get it into more specific language required by an Act of our own Parliament. I think I have indicated to the noble Lord the strong desire to get some indication of how they see the period between now and, say, the end of the year. We are not going to get a Bill this Session. Will we get a Bill next Session? What is the programme? There is such a thing as the future legislation committee of the Cabinet. They have it all on paper. Where does this Bill come? Ministers stake their claims for a slot in the future legislative programme. My noble friend Lord Aylestone, who was here until a moment ago, was deeply involved as the Chief Whip in a Labour Government at one time in how Bills came forward, what would be in the Queen's Speech and all the forward thinking that the Ministers have to do; and they have permanent civil servants. Do not believe all you see in "Yes, Minister". There is a lot of truth in it but I do not think we have had quite a dunce as a Minister in any Conservative Government that I can remember. It is highly entertaining, but I hope people will not think it is the truth. There is something much more dynamic behind the Minister than that, and a little more dynamic in Ministers themselves. Can we have some indication of how we go, when we get there, and see whether this long-awaited, promised up-dating of the 1876 Act will come about?
Lord Belstead: If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I gave a Written Answer to a Question which the noble Lord put down, on 4th March. In the Answer I said that a sub-group of the ad hoc committee of experts under the United Kingdom chairman had met in Strasbourg from 13th to 16th January and completed its task of making proposals for improving the drafting of the text of this convention. It made progress on its other task on statistics and, with the aim of completing that, will meet again on 11th May immediately prior to the next meeting of the ad hoc committee itself from 12th to 15th May. That committee is charged with making recommendations for the policy and substance of the future convention.
In preparation for these meetings, the Home Office held a further consultative meeting on 23rd March with representatives of a wide range of interested bodies in the scientific, industrial and animal welfare fields in this country The objective of the meeting which was held on 23rd March was to inform those present about developments and to take their views on the future draft convention, with particular reference to those articles the principles of which have not yet been settled by the ad hoc committee. These are the articles relating to the pain condition, to the re-use of animals, to education and training and to statistics.
The impression which we gained at the Home Office was that the meeting was useful and we shall consider carefully a number of matters which were raised before the United Kingdom delegation goes back to Strasbourg in May. Although at the meeting of the sub-group in January the West German delegation unexpectedly made a general reservation on the articles dealing with the breeding and supply of animals (and it remains to be seen how this will affect the discussions in May), we expect, as a result of that

351
meeting to have a sufficiently clear idea of the obligations of the convention to enable us to move forward towards legislation. We shall in the near future be receiving the report of the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments so far as the framework of new legislation is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked me specifically about the holding of consultations. I hope that it is implicit in what I have been saying that many views have already been expressed to the Government on these matters. As I stressed before, we must await the final draft of the European convention. In the meantime, we shall continue to take as constructive a part as possible in your Lordships' consideration of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Form and conditions of licence):
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, leave out from the beginning of line 22 to ("that") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: I shall reassure the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, by saying that I again shall seek to withdraw this amendment. It is a probing amendment. I ask the noble Earl and possibly the Minister if they will comment on this matter. The particular point I want to raise is something which I do not remember coming up before. I may be wrong about that. Certainly I have no recollection of it. Is it the implication of subsection 7(a) that if it is required with a view to carry out tests or investigations necessary for compliance with requirements having the force of law in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State is under a duty to issue a licence or does he have discretion?
One can imagine the situation whereby a law was passed or a regulation was made which had the force of law, which said that a substance should be tested or could not be used unless it had passed certain tests. It was not necessarily in the minds of those drafting the law as to what those tests should be. They just assumed that there were tests. I can imagine such a matter quite seriously happening or that science and knowledge progressed to such a stage after the passing of the Bill that it became quite clear that the only way in which a substance could be tested would be by tests involving animals and involving them at a degree of pain level which would not be acceptable in other circumstances.
In other words, the fact that you have a Bill or a regulation passed without a full understanding of the distant consequences in terms of animal testing. In such a situation as that, is the Secretary of State under a duty to approve of such tests being carried out or can he in fact withhold his approval? It is a rather recondite point but it is none the less one of substance and not detail. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury:I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that this is an amendment of substance
352
and the amendment which follows it is also an amendment of substance in exactly the reverse direction—again a contra riposte, one amendment to the other.
It is bad legislative policy in any context whatsoever so to leave the law that whatever is done someone is breaking it despite all efforts to conform to it. This amendment, as it stands, would so operate as in effect to repeal other legislation without explicitly enacting a repeal. Parts of other provisions in existing law would thereby be repealed in effect by making compliance with it impossible save by breaking the provisions of this one.
Although I sympathise with Lord Beaumont's approach, this is the wrong terrain in which to fight this particular battle. If the noble Lord dislikes the provisions of the health and safety at work Act, the clean food Act, the drugs Act, the medicine Act or whatever it may be, from the standpoint of the bearing that they have on the sacrifices that we impose on animals, it seems to me that he or his party should initiate legislation to repeal some of the requirements of the law as it now stands. He would, of course, have a headlong collision not with the scientists who are not really deeply involved with safety testing, but with the environmental lobby, the clean food lobby, or whoever it might be. But that would be his business. My point is that he would then be fighting the battle on the right terrain and not on the terrain of this Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Earl is fighting a battle that I did not open. He is making a speech in answer to the speech that he thought I was going to make instead of the speech that I made. I made it quite clear that I was not putting forward the kind of argument that he suggested; but I was asking a question as to what he understood as to the meaning of this Bill regarding whether the Secretary of State is bound to give a licence in these circumstances or whether he has discretion. I wonder whether the noble Earl or the Minister can answer that.
The Earl of Halsbury: I do not think that either under the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 or this Bill the Minister is bound to give a licence to anybody merely because he asks for one. The point is that if someone is under an obligation to have his product tested and the conditions of test fall foul of this Act, it is not a question of whether this Act gives the Secretary of State power to issue a licence but whether his doing so or not doing so falls foul of some other Act. This is the real point at issue.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The issue is even more complicated by that answer. When we get to the stage of considering the Government's Bill and its relationship to this Bill, I probably have raised a question which needs a little more elucidation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("requirements having the force of law in the United Kingdom;") and insert ("any statutory or other government requirement under other legislation, including any foreign legislation;").
The noble Earl said: This is the counterpart in the reverse sense. I shall not press it to a Division. I want to point out its merits as they must be attended to in any subsequent Government Bill. We must really avoid being just silly about animals and our regard for them. There are milestones on the Dover Road. We do not control what they do in France and elsewhere. The idea that British mice are sacrosanct but that French mice do not count is just silliness. It is insularity carried to the point of absurdity.
British pharmaceutical products that are going to be exported will be tested. If they are to be exported to France they will be tested according to French safety standards. If they are not tested here, they will be tested in France. We cannot legislate for what happens abroad. Are we seriously going to embargo British exports on the grounds that they are going to be tested in France on the point of arrival? What earthly legal power do Her Majesty's Government have to do any such thing as embargo exports for that reason?
If testing to foreign standards is done here, the animals will almost certainly be better treated than anywhere else, notwithstanding the fact that we shall be supposed to be working to the standards of animal treatment laid down by Strasbourg. There will almost certainly be an overall economy of animals since at least part of the safety standards will be common ground as between Britain and France. We should obviously like to align them completely but that may take time. For all these reasons, some such provision as this should be looked at by the Government in the drafting of their own Bill. For that reason, in order to give the Government an opportunity to comment on it, I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Leek: I have just come into the Committee. I apologise, but I have been watching for this amendment. I do not want to make a long speech, but I feel that a great effort has been made to make a success of this. I have listened to the noble Earl's argument—I knew what it was going to be—and I hope that, whatever happens to this amendment, the spirit of it is taken into account. The Committee having had a long day, and I have spoken for about only two minutes, I shall leave it at that because my intentions are obvious.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This is a most interesting amendment, particularly if it is taken together with the previous one. At the end of our discussion on that amendment I did not think we made ourselves clear. If the answer to my question was, "Yes, the Secretary of State has a duty to give a licence to matters which are affected by subsection 7(a)"—that is, tests on substances for compliance with requirements having the force of law in the United Kingdom—and if the noble Earl's amendment were passed or were to be incorporated into another Bill, which is what we are really discussing, then we are in the situation which I think the noble Earl was very near to urging, if he was not actually doing so, where we say that we will accept other countries' demands for the ways in which substances will be tested in order that we may be able to export our substances to them. Whereas in nine cases out of 10 to object to that would be to expose
354
oneself to the ridicule which the noble Earl quite rightly expressed about certain cases, there are indeed certain exceptions and certain cases where we should not want to go along that path, and where in this country we should be absolutely right to take a stand which is more moral than that taken about the treatment of animals for experiments and testing in other countries and to say, even if that meant that what we export from this country was still going to be tested in other countries, that we would not do it ourselves because it would be absolutely wrong.
There are those circumstances, and therefore I hope that when it comes to the Bill itself the noble Earl will not be trying to put this kind of amendment into that Bill. I understand that he is now going to withdraw his amendment and therefore it is irrelevant at this particular moment, but I do think that again we have brought up and highlighted another point of principle.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am well content at this point with what has been said on this amendment and propose to withdraw it unless the noble Lord himself wants to speak on it.
Lord Airedale: May I intervene for one moment on a very small drafting point? I do not understand the phrase—
"government requirement under legislation''.
Governments never legislate. They may get into the habit of supposing that they do, but it is Parliament that legislates.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should be prepared to concede that the noble Lord's point may indeed have some substance and I should like to look at it rather closely when I have more time available; but the amendment will be withdrawn in any case. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it is not mandatory on the Government to give licences under these conditions. It is permissive to say they may do so. If the foreign testing procedure was abhorrent to the conscience of the British people, they could say: "All right: then let it be done abroad". That is all right: you cannot stop it being done abroad. I am merely saying that for the most part to do one set of experiments which will provide safety standards for two countries is an economy of animals; but I think we have said all we need on that.
Lord Ferrier: I rather hope that the noble Earl will not withdraw the amendment if only so that we may take the sense of the voices in the Committee on the matter.
The Earl of Halsbury: I feel that if with the last amendment standing in my name I violated all that I have pleaded for during the course of our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, could with justice charge me with a double-cross! In those circumstances, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Halsbury: On this question of Clause 3, I want to take the Committee a little further through the clause which was to some extent anticipated by my noble friend Lord Houghton on Clause 1 stand part and press the noble Lord the Minister to tell us a little more than he did on Clause 1 about the position in regard to Strasbourg. I know there was a meeting of which I have had an account, but not yet minutes, from the Home Office last week. Everybody made their points as part of the briefing of our representative at Strasbourg, but I still need to learn the Government's reaction to it. I know that all is not well at Strasbourg. The Germans have reneged on part of the convention's detailed provisions as to rearing animals, or so I am told, and the number of clauses which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has recited, including the pain clause are still unsettled.
I am anxious that the Committee shall fully understand what is involved. As the law stands, in Britain today you cannot do an experiment which inflicts pain on an animal without a licence from the Secretary of State. The Act now in force allows him to attach conditions to the grant of such a licence and for years past a condition has been attached to the effect that under certain conditions animals must be destroyed in order that their pain may be relieved. I think it is pertinent actually to read these conditions of the present licence. Paragraph 3(a) reads as follows:
"If an animal at any time during any of the said experiments is found to be suffering pain which is either severe or is likely to endure and if the main results of the experiment have been obtained, the animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed".
So there we have either severe pain or enduring pain. Now we come to 3(b), which legislates for severe pain which is also enduring pain. It says:
"If an animal at any time during any of the said experiments is found to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, such animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed."
"Forthwith" does not presuppose that the experiment is finished.
Those are conditions but they are imposed at the Secretary of State's discretion. It is not a statutory requirement. The statute does not tell the Secretary of State what conditions he is to attach. He can issue a licence without this requirement if he thinks circumstances warrant it. It is now agreed that the conditions should be written into the Bill, but I have always argued that, if so, we must also write into the Bill an escape clause corresponding to the Secretary of State's current power not to impose this condition under the Act now in force.
I took this point very strongly in Committee, pressed it and carried it. At the time, and shortly afterwards, I was criticised, not by my colleagues in the Select Committee but outside, for over-dramatising the contingency aspects of what I insisted on. Since then opinion has swung my way. My noble friend Lord Adrian on Second Reading took up a real issue on the question of blackleg in horses, the preparation of sera against which does entail severe and enduring pain to the horses which are used as a source of this material. I hope he will repeat his comments this
356
evening and, if I have in any way misquoted what he said on Second Reading, he will put me right.
I know that the Royal Society and, I think, the physiologists are now unquiet about the state of the pain clause at Strasbourg, and the insistence on the need for what I have called an escape clause in special circumstances is receiving increased support. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to tell us exactly how not only his department but other departments which are involved—the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and any other deeply involved departments or industries—feel about the present status of the pain clause at Strasbourg.
Lord Adrian: I have on a previous occasion referred to the pain condition and, at the risk of boring your Lordships, taking up the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I should like to say a few more words. Perhaps I should say first that I think the enduring pain is caused to guinea pigs in the present preparation of blackleg vaccine and not to horses—though horses and cattle are subject to that particular disease, I believe. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already asked the Minister about the pain condition in the draft European Convention. In the Bill before us and in particular in Clause 3, ultimate discretion is given to the Secretary of State, though the Minister has said he would prefer an inviolable pain condition in any legislation. In this respect, I understand he deems that this Bill is insufficiently rigid.
Can the Minister assure the Committee that an inviolable pain condition on the face of the Bill, to be interpreted ultimately by the courts, will not prevent urgently required work on new viral diseases from Africa; on Marburg disease, on lassa fever and on some forms of hepatitis? These are newly recognised viral diseases and to contain them we need to know how the virus kills and how it works, and we may be able and may need to develop, make and test new vaccines. These are processes which might—I do not say that they will—have to involve severe or enduring suffering in experimental animals; or, at least, a degree of suffering which a court could well deem to be severe or enduring, if it were brought to their notice. Is the Minister content with the prospect that the courts shall decide which diseases may, or may not, be investigated, rather than the DHSS, the Home Office and the Medical Research Council; and, moreover, that the courts will, by law, have to decide this issue on animal suffering rather than on human suffering?
I should prefer to see the decision reside with the Secretary of State, after taking appropriate advice. I should add that I would expect this discretion to be exercised only—and I underline "only"—in cases which involve work on the prevention, cure and treatment of serious disease. My own preference, as I have said before, is for a pain condition to be administratively applied to licences, as is the present practice. But if it is to be on the face of the Bill, I plead that some ultimate discretion is withheld for the Secretary of State to allow this kind of work to go forward when it appears to be necessary.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This matter will be one of the main features of the legislation to come. It is on this that I think a great deal of debate and, probably, difference of opinion will arise. After all, the 1876 Act was designed to alleviate pain. It was concerned with pain. It described the general range of purposes for which living animals could be used, but its main purpose was to alleviate and eliminate pain on the animals being used. This has been pursued further in Clause 3 of this Bill. We have to look at what we mean by "properly anaesthetised".
We have a pain condition—I am now reading from page 4—and, having stated it in quite clear terms, we then go on to provide that the Secretary of State should have power to grant exemptions. This is the snag. If you lay down a clear-cut definition of what must be avoided, and then give the Secretary of State power to issue exemptions from that, you are obviously getting into very deep water indeed. We have to look at the pain condition in subsection (5) on page 4; then, we have to look at subsection (6); then, we have to look at subsection (7); then, we have to look at subsection (8) and, then, we have to look at subsection (9), before we have the whole picture of what could be called the pain condition. There is no doubt that a great many people in the field of animal experimentation, and among welfare bodies, will be looking for pretty clear guidance on this subject of pain.
One of the articles in the draft European Convention deals with this subject and it is not surprising that it is one of the draft articles that has not yet been agreed. This has to go to the next meeting in May, in the hope that it can be incorporated in the final draft, either in its present form or in an amended form. But this is the article which still has not been agreed. With the permission of the Committee I shall read it. It says:
"When during a procedure it is found that an animal is going to suffer, or is suffering, severe pain or distress or a degree of pain or distress greater than was envisaged which cannot be prevented or alleviated, that animal shall be humanely killed without avoidable delay, even if the main object of the procedure has not been achieved."
I want to ask the noble Lord the Minister: where will the British delegation stand on that at the meeting in May? What will be said on behalf of the British people, of Parliament and of the Government at the meeting in May? It is vitally important to know where the British delegation will stand. No doubt there will be two opinions about this. This is where compromises have to be made, if there is to be any kind of consensus. However, the Committee will note that the article, as drafted at the present moment contains this most significant condition at the end—and I repeat it—
"even if the main object of the procedure has not been achieved".
I believe that in the pain clause which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, read out a moment or two ago as being our present practice, there were words to the effect of the purpose of the experiment having been substantially achieved. There is nothing in our rules at the present time which requires an animal to be destroyed, if the purpose of the experiment has not been achieved—
The Earl of Halsbury: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? That is not the way I read the condition in (3)(b). It says:
358
"If an animal…is found to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, such animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed".
It says nothing about whether the purpose of the experiment had been achieved. That only applies to the "or" condition—severe pain or pain which is likely to endure.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: They are difficult words unless you have them in front of you. But the advisory committee, which took two years to examine the LD 50 test, which is the one to which I referred earlier—the toxicity test—admitted that the LD 50 test caused suffering. There seemed to be no escape from it. After all, if you are going to put substances into living animals until you reach the point where half of them die, it is unavoidable that you will cause suffering, probably of an acute nature, before death actually supervenes. This is what it is for. It is to test the lethal nature of the substance that is being used. In fact, "LD" means lethal dose, and "50" means 50 per cent.
This is a test which is highly controversial, because it is mostly used in the field of medicines, drugs, commercial substances—everything which you use in the kitchen, in the garden, on the farm and in industry. The area of this LD 50 test has been widely enlarged, as a result of health and safety legislation dealing with industrial substances.
I am raising the point: Where are we going to stand on the question of pain? I can quite understand that, in surgical treatment, it is very often possible to alleviate pain by anaesthetics and so on, so that the animal will not suffer acutely, and so that, if it does, the suffering will not last. But when dealing with the testing of substances, many of which are highly toxic and many of which can be actually poisonous, how does one escape from inflicting pain if animals are going to be destroyed before one knows whether or not it is going to kill them? That is why I am pressing the Minister to tell us this afternoon where we are going to stand on the article in the draft European convention which has not yet been agreed. Who is demurring? Are we? Or is it the others? Could we know, please, because this will give us a clue as to where the Government are likely to stand on this question? We have given our version in the Bill. It is not entirely satisfactory. Nothing can be which is going to provide any way out at all. Any escape route is bound to give rise to difficulties. So I raise this question and ask the Minister whether he can give us a clear reply.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The form which the pain condition should take in the Council of Europe convention has still to be settled. That is clearly understood this evening in the Committee. I should like to make it clear on the general point that, so far as the Government are concerned, we believe that the starting point for our reconsideration of this matter must be the present pain condition attached to all licences issued to persons wishing to carry out experiments on live animals under the 1876 Act, which empowers the Secretary of State to attach such conditions as he sees fit to any licence. The pain condition has remained in its present form, as the noble Lord, Lord Adrian,

359
reminded us, since 1929, having undergone only a few changes since it was first attached to licences in 1887.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked me where the United Kingdom stands, so far as the drafting of Article 8 is concerned, in the draft convention at Strasbourg. The present draft of the convention, Article 8 of which contains the pain condition, has not yet been agreed. It is designed to permit an animal to be put out of pain by the use of anaesthetics and not necessarily to be killed. It is, however, in our view, clumsily worded. Consequently, the United Kingdom delegation has had on the table at Strasbourg since last September a revised version which would have the same effect but which would make it quite clear that where an animal is in, or is expected to be in, severe continuing pain action must be taken immediately to relieve that pain or to kill the animal humanely.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, asked me if there was an inviolable condition upon the face of legislation, whether this would prevent tests which would be necessary to try to discover cures for the various illnesses which the noble Lord mentioned to the House, including lassa fever. I can give no assurance that the tests necessary in these circumstances would comply with the pain condition. As to the courts which the noble Lord mentioned, it does not follow that putting the pain condition on the face of legislation would bring the consideration of such matters before the courts. It would depend on how any new legislation was formed. However, the assurance I should like to give to the noble Lord—I think it is important that I should give this assurance at this stage—is that no final decisions have been taken on the matter. I assure the noble Lord that, in giving very careful consideration to all the views which have been expressed before the United Kingdom delegation returns to Strasbourg, we shall most certainly give very careful consideration to the words which the noble Lord has spoken this evening.
I really do not think that I can give your Lordships more information about the pain condition, so far as the Government are concerned with it at the moment. I hope that what I have been able to say is of some interest.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House without amendment; Report received.

Charterhouse Japhet Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.