Lords Sitting of 12 December 1985

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

South Bank Concert Halls: Management Salaries
Lord Somers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that nine directors are to be appointed to manage the concert halls on the South Bank with salaries of up to £24,000, under the authority of two artistic and administrative directors who will be paid £30,000 p.a. each
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I understand that the administrative and artistic directors will be paid £35,000 and £32,500 respectively. Of the nine people who will report directly to them, four will be on salary scales with a maximum below £20,000, three at a maximum of about £24,000 and two at a maximum just below £27,000. The posts will have rather wider responsibilities than those of the present GLC concert hall staff. The salary levels are similar to those paid by the GLC for comparable responsibilities.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he agree with me that that is an absolutely scandalous waste of money because the position of director of these halls is nothing but a sinecure? All the work concerning the booking of the halls, etc., is surely done by one of the secretaries and one man could easily manage all three halls.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord has a great deal more experience in these things than I have; but I venture to part company with him on his expression of view. We are dealing with an enormous complex. We are also dealing with tasks which the South Bank Board is creating for work which, to some extent, has been exercised by the GLC central services on behalf of the South Bank. That is why the original Answer referred to rather wider responsibilities. I would make the point again to the noble Lord that the rates of pay are comparable to those which have been paid for similar work. I commend the South Bank Board for its overall approach to staffing policy as being conducive to economy and efficiency.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that sufficient Government—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Somers: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister give me some encouragement that when
342
these appointments are made he will see to it that I shall be appointed to one of them? I should rather like to earn £24,000 a year for doing nothing.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, under the rules the posts have to be considered within the rules of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission, which means that applicants from inside, in other words those who have been working for the GLC or the Arts Council, have to be considered first.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry if I interrupted the application for one of the jobs by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. Can the Minister assure the House that sufficient Government money will be made available for the new South Bank entrepreneurial programming? That will evidently have to include the salaries of the general directors for arts and administration and the nine senior directors referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which is in excess of what was spent by the GLC. Noble Lords opposite thought that was highly extravagant. Can this be done without transferring resources away from the regions and other London arts bodies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, basic salaries will be shown as being slightly higher, but almost certainly that is because the work will not be done on an overtime basis. Take-home pay will not be higher. The answer to the question which was asked by the noble Baroness regarding whether the South Bank Board will have enough money, is that that is a matter for the Arts Council.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to reply that the Government are now spending rather more money on these salaries than was the GLC? Does this not mean that the GLC was not quite so extravagant as the Government at times have made it out to be?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is, no. The answer to his second question is also, no.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the Minister referred to similar work and similar rates of pay. Would he not agree that these 11 directors will run departments, with back-up secretarial workers no doubt, covering activities which hitherto have been covered with complete efficiency by one general manager? Would the Minister agree that if one adds up all the salaries together they would reach a sum which would just about guarantee the future of the Cottesloe Theatre on the South Bank?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is not comparing like with like. The GLC was responsible for running the three concert halls and only the three concert halls. The South Bank Board will be the landlord of the whole estate and will, it is very much hoped, be responsible for presenting an integrated programme of all the arts.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how this fits in with Government policy in relation to pay restraint generally? Will the directors concerned also be receiving redundancy pay?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, how it fits in with Government policy. We have made it perfectly clear for the past six years that we support the arts. That is what we are doing and that is what we shall continue to do.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that there will be no decline in artistic standards at the concert halls under the new regime?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Minister said just now that this is a matter for the Arts Council. Is he giving us an assurance that the Government will give the Arts Council sufficient money to enable them to do what is necessary?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have just given an extremely good up-rating to the Arts Council and I should have thought that the noble Lord would have been satisfied with that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, surely the noble Lord must share the view of his former colleague that £30,000 is not enough to live on?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I make it crystal clear because it is important that I should do so, even though the noble Lord has asked a skilful and amusing question? I believe on behalf of the Government that the South Bank Board is pursuing its staffing policies in a way which is conducive to economy and efficiency.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether I may press the noble Lord the Minister a little further on his reply to me that it was a matter for the Arts Council to decide how the money was allocated? The Arts Council was given in its total budget the amount of £25 million to compensate for the shortfall which would be suffered over the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the Arts Council had asked for £35 million? Is it not quite a coincidence that the difference between the £25 million and the £35 million is almost equivalent to the sum for which the South Bank Board is asking to run the South Bank? That figure is about £11½ million. Therefore will the Minister not have to agree that if the Arts Council gives the South Bank Board what it wants, then other bodies all over the country must suffer?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I think that the £25 million was a splendid up-rating from the £16 million which had been negotiated previously by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. Therefore it is an extra step in the right direction. I can only add that it will now be for the Arts Council to determine how much of that £25 million is allocated to the South Bank Board.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will show the same enthusiasm for creating jobs throughout the country as they have in this case?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the job creation scheme is something of which we are proud.

Defence Contracts: Competitive Tendering
3.10 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of new defence contracts has been been placed competitively in the last 12 months and what estimate the Ministry of Defence have made of the savings resulting from their policy.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in 1984–85 the proportion by value of work placed in a competitive environment was 46 per cent., an increase of 8 percentage points on the proportion for the previous year. A further significant increase is expected during 1985–86.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of what is anticipated in the coming year? Will this percentage figure rise by over half? Secondly, can he give an estimate of how much money has been saved by going to competitive tendering? If he cannot do it globally, perhaps he can give us one or two examples of contracts which have shown substantial savings.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is difficult to give a global figure in answer to my noble friend's question because we cannot know what prices we would have been offered in a non-competitive situation. However, my noble friend may recall the example of the two-seat basic trainer ordered for the RAF earlier this year, which resulted in a contract price some £60 million below the original budgetary estimate. As for the percentage of our work being procured on a competitive basis, that, as I said in the original Answer, was 46 per cent, last year. I should expect it to approach something like 60 per cent, this year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government have decided to apply a similar principle to that applied in accordance with federal law in the United States; namely, that in a competition for defence contracts it is the cheapest offer that wins? Alternatively, will the Ministry of Defence pay attention to the social and long-term economic consequences of a given decision? For example, when the choice of the new aircraft trainer was made, did the question of employment prospects arise, or was the cost the only consideration? I wonder whether I may remind the Minister—
Noble Lords: Too Long!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall come back again. I am grateful to noble Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I think I have said from this Box on more than one occasion, the

345
implications of the decisions we make in this regard are of course taken into account. However, in the case of the two-seat trainer, to which the noble Lord referred, as it happens the economic considerations and the social considerations seemed to be coincident.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Is it good enough for the Government for months and months to praise the virtues of competition and, when they are asked a question as to whether they are making any savings from this workable virtue of competition, all they can do is indulge in very vague talk about percentages? What we want to know is: are we saving any money? If not, why not tell us?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I referred to the £60 million which I believe we saved in respect of the two-seat trainer. The noble Lord may care to reflect upon the £100 million that I think we saved on the MCV 80 contract.
Lord Shinwell: But, my Lords, in what respect of defence have we saved £60 million? Is it good enough to tell this House of intelligent people—without exception, intelligent people—that we have saved £60 million without specifying on which particular item we have saved it? The fact is, we have saved nothing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I endeavoured to explain that the £60 million was on the contract for the Tucano two-seat basic trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The £100 million to which I subsequently referred was on the MCV 80 armoured personnel carrier which we have recently ordered for the British Army.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that this has been a useful reform, and that it is moving in the right direction? Ought we not now to come into line with other countries, particularly the United States, by being a little more revealing on what the price was at which the contract was won? We have been very careful never to reveal these matters whereas they are open facts given to Congress. We should be better able to see what value for money we are receiving, which would be wholly salutary and in keeping with the competitive philosophy of this Government.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend on that point. However, as he says, it is a matter of long-standing practice that these prices are not revealed, and, indeed, we should wish to reveal them only in accordance with an agreement reached with the contractors themselves.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, referring to the Government's addiction to competition, would it not be a good idea if they were to re-create the War Office, the Admiralty and the Navy, so that they could all compete with each other in the good old way and we could abolish the Ministry of Defence, including the noble Lord's own job?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the trouble with that kind of competition is that it is rather wasteful.

Middle East Peace Initiatives
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in establishing fresh talks with the PLO and relevant Middle East governments.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State will be holding talks with representatives of the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli governments, and with Palestinians resident in the occupied territories, during his current visit to the Middle East.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that is a most encouraging reply? I am deeply grateful for it and I think all people with interests in the Middle East and the re-establishment of peace there will also welcome it. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is further aware that in many parts of the Middle East and in the Gulf States there is still great regard, honour and respect for the United Kingdom, from our ante- and post-colonial period, and that this country is held in much higher respect than either of the so-called super powers. Is she aware that therefore we have a special role? I am very pleased the initiative has been taken, as I believe that it is this nation that can establish peace in the Middle East.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the announcement made by the noble Baroness about the visit to the Middle East by her honourable friend. Can she say whether the Middle East crisis was on the agenda of the talks between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev at Geneva, and, if so, whether any future arrangements were made for formal talks on this crucial subject? Can she say further whether Her Majesty's Government have been consulted on this matter by the United States Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot say that the Middle East was specifically an agenda item. I should have expected that in the course of their discussions they would have talked about the Middle East. However, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we keep closely in touch with the United States over this matter because we recognise that the United States has a special role because of her close links to parties on both sides of the dispute.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will not the noble Baroness nevertheless agree that progress towards a settlement in the Middle East is unlikely until such time as the Americans and the Russians get together and once again summon a conference in Geneva under their joint chairmanship?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes, I accept the importance of the role particularly of the United States

347
in the Middle East, in order to make some progress in this intractable problem.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I had some difficulty in hearing the Answer of the noble Baroness. I hope I am wrong in thinking that she said Her Majesty's Government had changed their policy and were now prepared to talk to assassins. I hope I am wrong in that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is quite incorrect on anything which I said in answer to the original Question.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, is it not agreed that the PLO consists of many different elements? Can the noble Baroness give the House some indication of the proportion of extremist and moderate elements in the PLO?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord's question, couched in the terms that it is. We do not accept that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people but we believe that they should be associated with negotiations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is no other organisation and that, like every other extremist organisation, it is born out of frustration? Is she further aware that when one travels through the Gulf and the Middle East, one finds there is much respect for this country and acknowledgement for the point of view that we have taken? I hope that we shall in no way be sycophantic to some elements of the United States administration which have looked at this whole question in such a biased manner. Like many others who have knowledge of the Middle East, I happen to believe that Great Britain can make a big contribution to securing peace in the Middle East, as I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate and understand.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot accept the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, about the United States. However, perhaps it may be helpful to the House to add something further about the PLO. I think it is important to recognise that not all Palestinians support terrorism or the arms struggle and that it embraces a very wide cross-section of opinion.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely it is always a problem if one becomes involved in looking for graduated virtues among assassins.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that I would wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paget, down that philosophical path.

Road Accidents and Seat Belts
3.21 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusion they draw from the Department of Transport's findings that, in the 24 months after 31st January 1983, more pedestrians and pedal cyclists were killed and seriously injured than in the 24 months preceding compulsion by vehicles in which the wearing of seat-belts by the drivers became compulsory, whereas fewer pedestrians and pedal cyclists were killed and injured by vehicles in or on which the wearing of seat-belts remained optional or not feasible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, before answering the Question I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, an error in his Question. Although fewer cyclists were killed, regrettably there was an increase in the number seriously injured by vehicles not subject to the seat-belt law. However, we agree with the independent assessors that the casualty increases which have occurred are unlikely to be associated with compulsory seat-belt wearing.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Would he not agree that, in general, the safer and more secure an individual feels, the more relaxed and hence inattentive he becomes and the slower his reaction times are likely to be; and that only this can explain the 6.3 per cent. increase in fatal and serious injuries to pedestrians and a staggering 18.4 per cent. increase in fatal and serious injuries to cyclists caused by belted motorists since the seat-belt law came into force?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the noble Lord fails to take into account is that there is a long-term trend but a greater proportion of pedestrians and pedal cyclists are hit by cars and vans. The reason for this, among other things, is that car traffic is growing faster than other traffic and that the increase in lorry traffic is making much more use of motorways and by-passes which this Government are building at a rapid rate.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Question does not refer to injuries or fatalities suffered by pedestrians and cyclists who are hit by moving vehicles? Is there any monitoring of the casualties suffered by pedestrians and cyclists? If so, what does that monitoring prove? Is there any evidence that this is due to seat-belt wearing drivers and what are the conclusions on that point? And would it not be most unfortunate if question and answer of this nature in this House reduced the confidence that is shown in seat-belts by the 94 to 95 per cent. of drivers who believe in wearing them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord on his last point. We have

349
done extensive assessments ourselves and produced our own report on road accidents in Great Britain in 1984. We have also undertaken an independent inquiry by two professors, Professor Durban and Professor Harvey, at the London School of Economics. These are fairly detailed statistics, copies of which are in the library
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the kerbside cycleways which are increasingly in evidence in London streets are very much appreciated by London cyclists, and will he do as much as he can to encourage the construction of more of them for safety?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that on the last point my noble friend had better speak to the GLC or the boroughs.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the solid benefit of the saving in life and serious injuries—200 lives and possibly 7,000 serious injuries every year—can be set against any doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there might be an adverse trend, for which there is no solid evidence whatsoever? Is my noble friend aware that the opponents of compulsory seat-belts are more to be congratulated for the tenacity of their viewpoint than the logic of their arguments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can confirm his figures. In addition to the figures he gave, there has been a reduction of 13,000 slight injuries since the seat-belt laws came into effect.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the Compulsory Wearing of Seatbelts Order has to be renewed in January 1986? Can he confirm that this House will have an opportunity then to debate the whole issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed, the regulations have to be reconsidered by Parliament, by both this House and another place, by 31st January next year. The timing of the debate is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that much of the reduction in deaths among motorists since 1982 is attributable not to seat-belts but to stricter enforcement of the drink driving laws and particularly to the introduction of the evidential breath test? Is he aware that the reduction in fatalities among sober motorists, as revealed by post-mortems, was a fall of only 4.4 per cent. between 1982 and 1984?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think there are a number of factors which have accounted for the reduction in the loss of lives since the introduction of seat-belts and I think that it would be wrong to highlight too many individual ones.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Forestry (Modification of Felling Restrictions) Regulations 1985 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1985 will be taken.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make fresh provision for the administration of salmon fisheries in Scotland; to provide as to the licensing and regulation of salmon dealing in Scotland; to provide for, and as respects, certain offences in the law of Scotland and in the law of England and Wales in connection with salmon; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1985
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the affirmative resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The House will have seen, however, that there are two associated sets of resolutions against which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has given notice of his intention to pray. It is not possible however for me to move the affirmative resolution intelligibly without some reference to the other two, since the one is virtually meaningless without the other two. I trust this will be for the convenience of the House.
The subject of the affirmative resolution is the Legal Advice and Assistance (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1985. They do no more than establish an initial upper limit of £90 on the work a solicitor may undertake on his own authority in certain cases. These have to be taken together with two other sets of regulations, namely, the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985, which make a number of agreed improvements in the usual conditions for advice and assistance, and provide most of the framework for the two-tier scheme which I announced last July. Both of those aspects are completed by the Legal Advice at Police Stations (Remuneration) Regulation 1985, which also prescribe the forms and rates of remuneration for this work. Scarcely less integral than the regulations is the Legal Aid (Deputy Solicitor) Scheme 1985 which the

351
Law Society has made to give effect to the arrangements for a 24-hour duty-solicitor scheme, and which the Treasury and I have now been able to approve. All these four documents form part of a complete system, and are fully interdependent. The loss of any one would make all the others unable to operate.
Together, the scheme and the regulations constitute one of the most significant developments in legal services for many years. For the first time it is proposed that special arrangements should be made for legal advice at police stations. In some ways that is a logical conclusion of the whole criminal legal aid system. It will be remembered that the origin of the scheme sprang from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which came in turn from the recommendations of the Philips Royal Commission. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act set out to bring order to the tangled area of police powers and procedures. I would hope that alone must be of the greatest value to solicitors and suspects—as much as to the police whose powers are now set out and clarified. But beyond that, the Act—together with the codes of practice prepared under it, which have now received parliamentary approval—have introduced substantial, and new, protection for suspects' rights. In large part these too are clearly set out in the Act, safeguarded and supplemented by the procedures of the codes, and breaches of them by the police are made a disciplinary offence.
Included among these rights, and perhaps the most important, is the statutory right to legal advice. This right already exists in the Judges' Rules. These are not satisfactory as they stand, and they will be withdrawn when the Act comes into force. Hitherto the police have been under no statutory obligation to inform suspects of their rights, and only the smallest proportion of suspects seem to have known about them or have chosen to exercise them. The Law Society have estimated this proportion at not more than 2 per cent. of the total. Current expenditure has been somewhere between £1 million and £2 million annually. This is why the Philips Commission originally recommended a more secure and better safeguarded right. They saw that this would involve some resource implications, and so they recommended that the right might be confined to suspects who had been held for six hours or more.
This position will change dramatically on the 1st January next, when the Act comes into force. All those arrested will have a statutory right to advice. The Government have always taken the view that the restriction suggested by the Commission (that is the six-hour rule that I mentioned) would make the right inoperable; and they have rejected it. Suspects must be informed orally and in writing (a suitable notice for this is in course of preparation) of that right, and how it might be exercised. They will have to sign their custody record to acknowledge that that has happened, and note their decision upon hearing it. Except in carefully defined individually authorised cases of urgency, the police may not conduct an interview further after advice has been requested until the client has seen a solicitor, if one is available. Under the code, there is also a right to advice—although as circumstances dictate more flexibly administered—for
352
all those who are voluntarily helping the police. I shall refer to these as volunteers. Suitable reinforcing publicity is being prepared in this respect for police stations.
The effect is expected to be an enormous increase in the numbers of those requesting advice. Both the Philips Commission's research and the pilot studies conducted by the Law Society suggest that some 20 per cent. of suspects will exercise the new right. What is more, the tighter timetables imposed on the police, within which they must charge or release a suspect, mean that many of these requests will arise outside normal working hours. It is clear that it would be difficult for solicitors to meet such a formidably increased burden of work (it would mean, if I am rightly instructed, over 300,000 requests per annum) without administrative assistance and without arrangements for the periods of the day in which it would be most difficult to reach a solicitor.
The Act therefore includes powers for the Law Society to make arrangements for a 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. That is discharged by the scheme that I have been referring to, and will operate through the same regional and local committees which are already successfully administering duty solicitor schemes in magistrates' courts. When a suspect is told of his rights he will be told that he can either have his own solicitor called, if he has one, or a duty solicitor, and that there is a list of the solicitors in the area who are prepared to do this work from which he can choose. If he opts for the duty solicitor, the police will telephone the switchboard which has details of the duty solicitors in the region. That service—which has been the subject of a competitive commercial tender—will be provided by Aircall plc, through nine regional centres. The service will be responsible for finding a duty solicitor for the area and informing him of the details of the request. That procedure aims to ensure that duty solicitors can reach the police station within the timetables laid down. The solicitors, and others who will work under the scheme, will be selected for relevant experience of criminal work and for general ability to advise at police stations. The framework for all this is contained in the scheme.
This new departure requires the active participation of all solicitors who do criminal work. On the basis of the Society's pilot schemes, it would seem that of the 300,000 cases annually about a third of cases (that is, about 100,000 a year) will fall to the duty solicitor. These requests will in large measure fall outside normal office hours. The other requests will be to the suspect's own solicitor, and we have been careful to try to ensure that the administration of the scheme does not limit freedom of choice.
The existing legal advice and assistance scheme—the so-called green form scheme—of which this is an offspring is designed very much for the usual circumstances in which a client comes fully prepared to see a solicitor but to see him in his office. It follows that the new scheme must be radically altered in order to meet the changed circumstances that I have been trying to describe.
In considering this scheme I have of course had to consider the availability of Government finance; more especially those costs already prospectively coming on my own estimates but also of course all the other

353
innumerable claims on Government finance generally; overseas aid, defence, health and social services, education, housing, police, roads, and indeed all the claims on the public purse. The original estimate of the Philips Commission of the cost of what they propose was £6 million a year. But the pilot schemes based on our own decisions indicated that the minimum for which it would be right to budget would be £20 million a year. That means that I am under an absolute obligation to get the best value I can for what I have been allotted.
The right to advice is entirely unlimited. But not all cases will require effectively unlimited payment from public funds. Every person arrested will have a right to legal advice. We have drawn up a scheme which we consider will make that effective by ensuring that solicitors will be available under the duty solicitor scheme, and that on average solicitors who visit a police station will be able to give in all cases the average amount of advice which research indicates is now given in a few. That is further supplemented by new remuneration arrangements which will make it easier for a solicitor to provide paid advice over the telephone. All we are doing thereafter is to put a limit on the cases in which it will be possible to get the unrestricted advice to the more serious instances. As I announced last July, that must involve a two-tier system of remuneration.
There is, first, in the new arrangements a provision for a standby payment of £60. That £60 will be paid to the duty solicitor in any case, even if his services are not required at all, during the 24 hours when he may be on call, though part may be set off against work actually done. When his services are required, there is a limit on the costs he may incur corresponding to the rather different limits available under the existing green form scheme. At present the figure is £50. If it is likely that more than that will be required under the existing scheme the solicitor must obtain a prior extension from the Law Society before he spends the extra money.
Although that can be done very quickly during office hours in an emergency, there is at present no way within the regulations in which that limit may be exceeded out of hours—short of ringing the staff of the society at home. In serious cases at police stations this must constitute a severe constraint and, in our view, it must be modified.
The present regulations therefore provide a new limit of £90, instead of the existing limit of £50, when a solicitor is advising a suspect who is arrested in connection with what we know as an arrestable offence—not a phrase, I must say, in which I particularly take delight, but that is the jargon of the trade—as defined by the 1984 Act and that limit is extensible retrospectively if need be. That compares, as I have said, with the present £50 which is extensible but not extensible retrospectively. In passing, I may say that the protection of the Act and its procedures are to be extended to service personnel and the same limit will apply to those being questioned about serious service offences.
Since these are likely to be more serious matters—arrestable offences are those, very broadly, for which five years' imprisonment, or more may be imposed—both prolonged advice and perhaps the
354
solicitor's presence at interview or on other matters may be needed. This is why the £90 limit will therefore have to be extensible—and, as I have said, retrospectively if need be—to allow for urgency and working out of office hours. The other regulations in concert achieve this substantial improvement on the present system.
But as I have said, the £90 figure, that extensible limit, applies only to arrestable offences. Cases which involve non-arrestable offences, whether or not the person has actually been arrested—and that indicates one of the reasons why I do not like the phrase "arrestable offences"—as must often be the case, and those where he has not been arrested at all, will be subject to the standard green form cost limit of £50 and that £50 may not be exceeded.
On the basis of the society's pilot schemes, this amount should very broadly allow a solicitor to visit the suspect in the police station and provide the average period of advice required in cases of all kinds where average travelling costs apply. Alternatively, it may be possible for him to advise over the telephone for very much less, and I hope that in a very large number of cases that may prove to be the case. In both tiers it will be possible for solicitors to give advice to all the suspects who need it, either personally or by telephone, and make the rights conferred by theAct an effective reality.
3.45 p.m.
There have been requests for these categories to be changed, either to different categories or else to allow specific offences to be included. We will, of course, wish to see how the scheme is working in practice. In the light of experience, it may well prove that there is a need for wider scope or for different and more appropriate categories. My own mind is not in any way closed. The Government have undertaken to do research—which is now in hand—on the actual numbers of offences in various classes, which will help us to see whether or not we are on the right lines.
There are a number of further improvements which are to be made in the usual green form conditions, whether advice is given by the duty solicitor or the suspect's own solicitor. At a police station, it is scarcely reasonable to expect a suspect to be able to give details and proof of his financial condition or to have money to make a contribution towards the cost of his advice if he is liable, as he would have to do under the existing scheme. The means test and the contribution provisions are therefore entirely removed. Applications by telephone are permitted. The society's prior approval, normally required if an application is taken direct from a child will not be necessary here. A case may be handed from a duty solicitor to the suspect's own solicitor or vice versa and that is facilitated under the arrangements.
I will not go into every detail of the remuneration arrangements for police station work, which are contained in the regulations. But it may be helpful if I say something more, briefly, about the basic structure. As I have said, a duty solicitor will be given a standby payment of £60 for 24 hours or pro rata for lesser periods. Up to half the value of that may be set off against the value of work actually done during the period. He will be paid at the rate of £27 an hour for

355
all work, except that outside normal office hours, when that rate of £27 will be enhanced by one-third so that it will be £36 an hour in upper-tier cases.
A flat rate fee of £10 is introduced for advising over the telephone, together with a charge of £1 for routine telephone calls—that is, I suppose, telephone calls in which advice is not given—for example, to the telephone service or to establish contact with the client. Where necessary, accommodation costs will be met. The provisions for own solicitors are more similar to the existing general arrangements. They will be paid £27 an hour for advice and £17 an hour for travelling and waiting. The same telephone fees will be available and both types of solicitors will receive travelling expenses to and from their client.
Both duty and own solicitors will also be involved in advising and representing suspects in connection with hearings for warrants of further detention. Your Lordships will remember the discussions we had over them on the earlier Bill. These hearings before a magistrates' court are necessary when the police wish to detain a suspect for more than 36 hours without charging him. Assistance by way of representation will be available in these cases, but since these cases will always be urgent the Government accept that legal representation will invariably be necessary and the usual requirement for prior approval by the society will therefore be waived, as will the means and contribution liabilities. The usual remuneration for this work will be paid, except that duty solicitors who are doing it out of usual office hours will have their rates enhanced by one-third.
Viewing these arrangements as a whole, they form a systematic and workable attempt to discharge the Government's undertaking to provide an effective right to legal advice, balanced against our need to take from the taxpayer only what is necessary. I think it will be effective and believe it will prove efficient. I must acknowledge that all this is a new area—we have not explored it before—and with so substantial an undertaking we must always be ready to adjust what we have provided if, in the light of experience, we see better ways of doing things. The Law Society knows that I am willing to review how the system works. I repeat that to your Lordships' House. The Government have demonstrated that in part already by committing resources to research into offence numbers, which is already under way. The society and the department will be closely monitoring how it all works in practice.
As I have said, this is the most significant development in legal services for many years. I think I can claim, and I am advised that I can claim, that it is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. If these regulations are not passed, from 1st January suspects and solicitors would be limited to the £50 available under the present green form scheme and the society's present scheme would go by the board. All these regulations stand or fall together. If one goes, they all go. The present scheme is the best that I can now offer, and I must I am afraid apologise to the House for the rather complicated and perhaps detailed speech that I felt compelled to make. I beg to move the Motion in my name.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for guiding us through this forest of provisions in the important field of legal aid and advice. I do not challenge the first of the proposed regulations before the House, but I do pray against the No. 2 Regulations.
During the course of the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the Government spokesmen agreed that suspects held in police stations should be given a statutory right to legal advice in private from a solicitor, either their own solicitor or one of the duty solicitors. It was, I readily agree, an important concession, and I venture to think that it produced on the part of the House a greater willingness to accept some of the additional police powers for which the Bill provided. To ensure that suspects without their own solicitor may nevertheless obtain help from a solicitor, the Government agreed, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to provide in the Act and codes of practice for a 24-hour duty solicitor scheme, which was to be established by the Law Society through its regional and local committees.
When the Home Secretary announced this proposal in another place on 7th November 1983 he said that to make the new statutory right effective,
"arrangements are needed for solicitors to be available at all times when legal advice may be sought".—[Official Report (Commons) 7/11/83; col. 33.]
He added that the Government would put public money,
"where our mouth is".
That is a bold statement, and a rare one, for any Minister to make, but he made it on that occasion. Now is the time for calling to account whether that undertaking is going to be carried out.
In the light of that promise, in November 1983 the Law Society proceeded to make detailed plans for the 24-hour scheme, but unhappily there was a good deal of delay—it may not have been entirely the fault of the Government—in the Government announcing their own proposals. It was not until July of this year that the noble and learned Lord was able to confirm that money would be available for the scheme. The Government's decisions were announced and are contained in the orders which we are considering today.
One decision, made apparently without prior consultation with the Law Society, was that legal advice in the police station would be organised on a two-tier basis, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated. That, however, was presented as something of a fait accompli—a "take it or leave it" proposal—just a day or two before the Government's statement was made in July. It became evident that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was being required to develop a duty solicitor scheme within a strict superimposed financial limit and control.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, the two-tier scheme provides that only a suspect detained for an arrestable offence as defined in Section 24 of the

357
Act—I share the distaste of the noble and learned Lord for that designation—will be entitled to legal aid to the full extent of a solicitor's advice. Everyone else will fall into the lower tier: and yet among offences which are included among those not arrestable under Section 24 are serious offences such as assaults on constables, the possession of offensive weapons and serious public order offences. In his observations the noble and learned Lord indicated a general willingness to keep an open mind on some of these matters. He may well consider at any rate whether some of those offences ought to be raised and included in the upper tier for the fuller consideration that they would require from a solicitor giving advice. If that were done, I am bound to say that it would diminish some of the anxiety that has been expressed about these proposals.
The noble and learned Lord has spoken of what is to happen in respect of volunteers. There is a good deal of anxiety that they and their problems are again put in the lower tier category in respect of the amount of advice they can receive from a solicitor. Volunteers are those persons who go voluntarily to the police stations to help with inquiries. For the purposes of getting a solicitor's advice their cases fall into the lower category. Yet it is surely in the public interest that the public should be encouraged to assist the police with their inquiries rather than be arrested before they can be questioned. Perhaps consideration could also be given by the noble and learned Lord to transfer this category also into the upper tier.
As the noble and learned Lord has explained, the cost to legal aid which a solicitor would be allowed to incur for a person or case included in the lower tier would be £50 as a maximum, with no extension permitted. This will be paid at the usual rate for this type of legal aid work of £27 an hour. Thus the maximum sum permissible and to be paid would provide two hours' work by a solicitor.
4 p.m.
The view of the Law Society is that in many cases the lower tier absolute limit of £50 will not enable a solicitor to give the help that he or she professionally considers necessary. Included in the £50 maximum is the solicitor's travelling time. Experiments conducted by the Law Society have shown that travelling time will take on average 30 minutes to 40 minutes in each direction, to and from the police station. It is felt that the provision is inadequate for a considerable number of the difficult cases that suddenly have to be dealt with in the police station by the duty solicitor or the client's solicitor. It may well be that my noble friend, when speaking at the end of the debate, will ask some questions about the facilities that will be available for consultations in the police station when the solicitor arrives there.
Apart from the area of volunteers, there is another area where a good deal of concern is felt. It is the inclusion in the lower tier category of persons and classes of people who are, to use the technical phrase, "at risk". I have received approaches from the Mental Health Foundation and the National Association for Mental Health about the fact that the important safeguards for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people that are commendably contained within the Act and its code of practice will be somewhat
358
diminished, if not undermined, by the limited provisions of the 24-hour scheme in respect of the legal aid proposals.
I submit that it would be far more in keeping with the legislation involving suspects at police stations who are vulnerable—particularly the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, and juveniles—that they and their cases, and cases affecting them, should be included in the top tier. The House will not forget the Confait case, which was frequently quoted during our debates. That was the case in which two juveniles and a mentally handicapped 18 year-old volunteered to go to a police station and were subsequently convicted of murder on the basis of a false confession. There has been a worrying number of similar cases involving the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. It is to the Government's credit that the vulnerability of those groups, and indeed that of juveniles, has been recognised in the Act and its code, particularly in its requirement that an appropriate adult be present during police questioning.
Important as those safeguards are, of greater importance perhaps is that legal advice should be available to persons in those classes during the time when they are held by the police as suspects in a police station. I hope therefore that in approaching these regulations in the generous spirit that the noble and learned Lord has indicated, his mind will not be closed again to widening the area to be covered by the top tier of legal advice.
The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to indicate today his readiness to review the situation arising from this noble experiment—and I am happy to describe it in that way—so that, if it is discovered that there are gaps (and I ventured to indicate some that are causing concern), then perhaps the noble and learned Lord will choose an early opportunity to inform the House and Parliament of the Government's intentions. I cannot tie the noble and learned Lord down to a time limit; I should be neither so impertinent nor so unwise as to suggest one. However, clearly we are dealing with an area where there ought to be changes in order to give the scheme its full effectiveness. Subject to that and to the observations I have made, we give the scheme itself our broad welcome. But formally at this stage, I beg to move—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord cannot do so until we have passed the first Motion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, my master, the Opposition Chief Whip, was about to put me right but he did not rise to his feet in time. In those circumstances, as I said, I give support for what is proposed, subject to the important deficiencies and omissions that we pray the Government will remedy sooner rather than later.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will welcome the statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because it seems to me to be a most important step in our legal aid procedure. In my time, legal aid has been one of the greatest revolutions in our law. When I started in

359
the legal profession, a man who was arrested received no legal assistance and had no right to see a solicitor. I have often been there when such a man was arraigned before the judge of assize. He would ask for legal aid, and the judge would respond by asking him, "Do you have £l. 3s. 6d?" The accused might reply that a friend had the money, and then he was told that he could choose from any of the gentlemen to be seen at the Bar. The accused could only see the back of our heads and our wigs. He would pick out one of us; I have often been picked out.
I, as a member of the Bar, would for £1 3s. 6d. defend that man, perhaps in a case lasting days, and yet receive no further reward. That was the public service of the profession; to help accused persons in that way. That is what happened when I started.
In the civil courts, I have time after time conducted a case through to trial for no fee whatsoever, instructed by a solicitor who received only his out-of-pocket expenses and no more. That was the position before legal aid was introduced, first in 1947 and thereafter. What a transformation it has made! Every citizen, especially in the criminal courts, can employ a solicitor and counsel with no responsibility himself for paying anything, but looking to the taxpayer to pay his lawyer's expenses. That is all very satisfactory; a great revolution at the expense of the Government and the country.
Today we have a most important extension. By the Act that we passed last year, every man who is arrested at any time of day or night is entitled to seek legal advice. He is given the name of a solicitor if he wants one. He can have that solicitor come at once to the police station to give legal advice. All the payment is made by the taxpayer. That is all very satisfactory but, if I may say so, there are limits to which even governments or taxpayers can go in financing legal aid. Your Lordships may have received, as I have, a letter from The Legal Action Group on behalf of law societies, and so on, and this seems to be how it starts. Can your Lordships understand this? It is headed, and underlined:
"Help prevent cash-limiting of legal aid".
What does it mean? It is asking your Lordships to say, "Do not let any cash limits be put on legal aid; let it be extended right through, irrespective of limits". At the end, the letter states:
"The Government's curtailment of the service … runs counter to current and historical thinking. It creates a worrying precedent at a time of constant searches for cuts."
It is not contrary to any historical or current thinking. It is a great advance in thought that every man who is arrested should be entitled to have a solicitor's advice without paying for it himself but, with the Government, the taxpayer, helping, pay as much as he can afford. I would rely on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his advisers to see what can be afforded and what are the best terms.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very clear exposition of this most important development and I ask your Lordships to approve it wholeheartedly.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, this debate is of great importance although ostensibly it
360
only embraces one part of one regulation. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that even I am old enough to have started my career on dock briefs. They were highly unsatisfactory but the greatest possible fun because it was the only occasion when a member of the Bar could take instructions direct from the client.
This matter goes to the very heart of the public sector provision of legal services. It follows on directly our recent debate on the codes issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those codes received generally a warm welcome, particularly from these Benches, but the warmth was dependent upon the volunteer and the suspect in the police station having, in practice, access to the legal advice and assistance to which they are entitled under the codes. Unless that access is made a reality the greater part of the provision of those codes is stillborn, and indeed the good faith of the Government is seriously in question. Therefore, the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme is, I suggest, crucial to the operation of the codes. Unless public funding is sensible and reasonable, so that solicitors of high calibre are able to take part in the scheme, as indeed they always have done with a sense of public duty where legal aid cases are concerned, the scheme will simply fail.
It is the division of legal assistance into two categories with which we are really concerned here today, and with the question of the second tier, because I, too, on behalf of those of us on these Benches, do not challenge the other two regulations. Here legal aid, legal assistance, is for the first time subject to an arbitrary ceiling with strict cash limits as opposed to the provision of a standard fee with a right to retrospective enhancement upon application to an independent assessment body to ensure that in the infinite variety of different circumstances the public are, in fact, properly served.
4.15 p.m.
I really wonder, with the greatest of respect, whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his staff have an informed appreciation of what a solicitor who is summoned to a police station in the year 1985 might have to do. I have here 38 pages of guidelines issued to solicitors for advising suspects in the police station. I take the situation of the volunteer—the person who is asked to go to the police station to be questioned about the finding of an offender in relation to a crime which might be of the most serious possible kind. The code sets out the rights of that person as a simple volunteer in the police station. He will have certain rights simply as a volunteer. He will have further rights if the police decide to caution him, but not to arrest him. He will have certain further rights if the police then decide not only to caution him but to arrest him in the police station. He must be cautioned at different stages. He may be questioned at intervals over an open-ended period and he is entitled to various periods of rest and refreshment, and so on. He will need advice in all those circumstances.
He will need advice, too, on whether he should make a statement; whether he should make a statement as a witness or as a suspect; whether he should turn up, or agree to turn up, at an identification

361
parade; whether he should give a sample if requested; whether he should be medically examined if asked; whether he should give his fingerprints; whether he should agree to be photographed, and whether he should agree to have his home or his place of work searched. He may want to discuss the question of bail on the possibility of being arrested. He may wish to obtain sureties. He may wish to notify friends or business associates.
He may be shown exhibits by the police. He may be read statements by alleged suspects or other witnesses. What is he to say when these suggestions or allegations are read to him? He may need to contact an essential alibi witness. He may wish to get hold of essential documents which will immediately 'establish his innocence. All these things will be done at a tempo which is dictated quite properly by the police who will quite likely be under extreme pressure to arrest suspects, to take statements, recover property, and so on.
This volunteer may be questioned in relation to murder, rape or robbery and, particularly so far as time is concerned, in regard to fraud and cases of dishonesty. Advice at this early stage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, is absolutely crucial; not only to the accused but perhaps also to the police in order that they may eliminate this person from their inquiries and in order to assist in the general administration of justice. It may be necessary to advise the person, if charged and in the circumstances he is clearly guilty, to make a statement and to assist the police or, alternatively, advise him not to make any statement. In those circumstances, no solicitor can operate with a stopwatch in one hand and a totally artificial time limit in front of him.
What an incentive it is in such a situation, when the moment comes, to get his client arrested rather than have him remain as a volunteer!—because if he can be arrested, then the solicitor can remain with him until the hell rings for him to cease to give advice. What an incentive it is to get him charged with an arrestable offence rather than an ordinary offence, for the same reason! What an incentive it is to the police to stretch things out so that the time will come when the bell rings and the solicitor has to leave, and then for them to question the volunteer, to charge him or to arrest him!
What will happen when that occurs? Will the volunteer be able to say, "Oh, I must have my solicitor back again", because time will start to run again into the next area of an arrestable offence? The reality is that by that time it will be two o'clock in the morning and the solicitor will be in his motorcar driving home. All this is practical, sensible material, which I suggest really makes this arrangement of the second tier quite impossible with a volunteer in a police station.
One category of persons at risk is that of the volunteer. The next category of persons at risk covers juveniles, those with mental illness or handicap—an impediment in sight, speech or hearing—or those who have imperfect English. Such people surely cannot be limited to a short period of two hours for obtaining advice on offences of any kind. Surely those people, in accordance with Code C, which we were dealing with the other day, must not be interviewed by the police in the absence of an appropriate adult. If that appropriate
362
adult is a solicitor, what happens when the bell rings and the time is up, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
As regards the normal suspect, as has already been pointed out such offences—and I would add to them—which involve assaults on police constables, indecency with a child under 14, incitement to racial hatred, indecent exposure, kerb-crawling and soliciting by a man for immoral purposes, obscene publications, the possesion of offensive weapons, and such like are all matters of crucial importance, where to limit advice to a very short period of time would in my submission make the whole basis of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes which go with them really not operable. In all those circumstances, I suggest that at the very least the number of offences to go into the first tier should be increased; that volunteers should be included in the first tier; and that other persons at risk should also be contained in the first tier. This would at least be an advance on the present situation and would enable the legal aid scheme to work properly.
I should like to finish what I have to say by simply reading out six or seven lines from the advice to solicitors issued by the Law Society. In my submission, it says it all as regards the importance of this scheme and the vital importance of early advice:
"A solicitor's presence and advice will assist the truly innocent to give an account of their activities under suspicion and help to relieve them of pressures which can induce false confession and cause miscarriages of justice. A solicitor will advise the guilty of the weight of evidence against them and, if they be truly guilty, of the substantial mitigation advantages of admitting guilt at the earliest opportunity and assisting the recovery of stolen property and clearing up outstanding enquiries. The presence of a solicitor in a police station means that justice is better secured by the individual. It also leads to savings in police court and judicial time so that quicker and more economical justice is secured to the community at large."
In my submission, in those words the whole essence of the proper remuneration of solicitors under this scheme is entirely justified, and if a little more money can be spent on that advice, as is said here, then enormous sums will be saved in the end.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him whether he would agree that other professional people, such as doctors and certainly a large number of other professionals, are frequently called out in the middle of the night to carry out their duties. There is no question of limiting the time that they spend according to the amount of money they receive. The noble Lord presents his own profession as being extraordinarily mercenary. Surely, if they really have their client's interests at heart the fact that they only receive a certain amount of money will not stop them carrying on for longer than two hours.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there is a parallel between the lawyer and the doctor in those circumstances. I think she will find that a doctor who is called out and who has to spend 8, 9, 10 or 12 hours with a patient will be remunerated accordingly. No doubt solicitors who are called out and who have to stay for 12 hours with their client will be prepared to do so for nothing on many occasions. But if this

363
scheme is to work properly and is to be efficient, then surely there should not be a distinction between being called out on an arrestable offence and being called out on any other offence.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should declare an interest. I am a practising solicitor, though I am without experience in criminal law. Nevertheless, my firm has a criminal law practice. I can tell the House that there is very serious concern about the costs of the proposal for the category of non-arrestable offences.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained how the Act for the first time gives a suspect a statutory right to communicate privately with his solicitor. That is a long overdue reform. But most people do not have a solicitor in the way that everyone has a doctor, and even people who do have a solicitor sometimes find it very difficult to contact him outside office hours. That is the reason why an effective 24-hour duty solicitor scheme is vital. Without such a scheme, many suspects will be left without protection in the face of the enhanced police powers given by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
We have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is estimated that there are about 300,000 suspects who will require legal advice at police stations, and of those one-third will ask the duty solicitor. It is also envisaged that five out of six calls will be made outside normal office hours and at weekends. That is not merely an estimate. Indeed, it has been confirmed by a number of pilot schemes which were conducted up and down the country, including a pilot scheme in the Miskin petty sessional division in Mid-Glamorgan. Of course, we know very little about the facilities available at a police station for the solicitor to offer his services and for the consultation to proceed. More often than not, the facilities are inadequate and there is a lack of privacy. This may be something which the Lord Chancellor's department will consider in due course, and they may suggest how to improve the facilities which are available.
4.30 p.m.
It would be a matter of the gravest concern if solicitors were prevented from offering an effective duty solicitor service, yet I am advised by the administrator of the duty solicitors committee in my petty sessional area that that could well be the effect of the remuneration proposals. We have been told how the scheme involves a two-tier structure which differentiates between arrestable and non-arrestable offences. The proposals for arrestable offences are generally thought to be satisfactory. However, when attending a suspect following an arrest for a non-arrestable offence, or one who is at the police station helping with inquiries, regardless of the seriousness of the offence, the duty solicitor will be limited to £50. I am advised that that is likely to be inadequate in many cases.
The majority of suspects who require access to the duty solicitor will be in the non-arrestable category. As the non-arrestable offences have been relegated to the second division in the remuneration proposals, are we
364
to conclude that the department believes that they are less important? If that is so, we think that it is wrong. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, have referred us to the list of non-arrestable offences. The cases which have been referred to can be as difficult, as challenging and as worrying to the individual and to the solicitor as arrestable cases, yet they are relegated to the second division.
The petty sessional division in which I live is in the county of Mid-Glamorgan, a county with immense social problems, although thankfully they have not yet reached the magnitude of the problems in the inner cities. It has a population of 172,000 and four busy magistrates' courts. During the past 12 months about 3,000 people were arrested or interviewed at police stations. We have been told that it is anticipated that about one-third of those people will call for the duty solicitor. That means that in our area there will be about 20 calls a week, of which at least 15 will be outside normal office hours or at weekends.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the noble Lord or I may have misunderstood myself, but if I have understood myself correctly and understood him correctly, his mathematics are at fault. The figure that I gave was not one-third of those arrested but one-third of those who asked for legal advice out of those who are arrested will go for the duty solicitor.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I may need to be corrected, but I have based my figures on the information that I have received from the man who has been administering the pilot scheme for the past few months, and he may be nearer to reality than the Lord Chancellor's department.
Some of the solicitors who are working the duty scheme in our petty sessional division live outside the division, and they would be faced with a return journey of anything between 25 and 45 miles, and could reckon on spending an hour, an hour and a half or two hours travelling. I am not certain how in those circumstances one arrives at the average travelling costs to which the department refers.
I am advised, and I can only bring this message to your Lordships' House, that solicitors are being deterred from volunteering their services by the inadequate remuneration proposed. If that is so, the difficulty does not end there. If the administrator is left with a dwindling band of solicitors, the burden which the remainder will have to shoulder will be commensurately greater, so they too may be deterred from participating in the scheme. If that were to happen, the scheme would be seriously weakened.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor informed the House that the Government are constrained by lack of funds, but the size of the fund and the priorities of the demand on it are determined by the Government. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his assurances that the department will monitor closely the implementation of the scheme, and if experience shows that it is necessary to bring forward proposals to reform it, he will do so.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make two observations in the debate. I fully agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said when he explained the matter to us. The reform incorporated in the new arrangements for legal aid is a noble stand and one which will be of great benefit not only to those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in a police station but to the police themselves. If a solicitor stands by a man's side when he is being interrogated, with the opportunity to advise him, that will eliminate almost certainly what today happens all too often. When a case comes to court the defendant denies an alleged confession which he is supposed to have made, and the time of the court is taken up for hours and sometimes for days on end inquiring as to whether the confession was true or false. In the great majority of cases all that will be eliminated if there is a duty, or any other, solicitor present at the man's side. Therefore I very much welcome what has been done, and I pay tribute to the way in which the noble and learned Lord has steered the matter through and presented the regulations to us today.
I do not need to say more about the matters that have been spoken of from the Benches on this side of the House. I agree with every word that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I do not know whether I am out of order in mentioning the suggestion that one of the regulations should be annulled. However, if I may say so, and if it is in order to say so, I do not think that that is a satisfactory way to deal with the matter. The noble and learned Lord has embarked on the two-tier system. I think that perhaps the most we can hope for is that, as the system operates and as it is monitored, the opportunity will be taken to find out whether there are certain categories of case which ought in the light of experience to be taken out of the second tier and put into the first. I should imagine that that would be a fairly simple operation to see how the scheme works. I take satisfaction from the assurance that he has given us that he will look closely to see how that works out in practice. That may be the best way to proceed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that I have no intention whatever of seeking to annul the proposed regulations. I thought that I had made that clear, but it matters not.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I speak as a non-legal person. I am, however, a magistrate in the City of Birmingham where there are over 400 magistrates. There are 13 individual courts operating daily. My contact with solicitors is through the courts system. I am fully aware that for the last five years in Birmingham there has been an out-of-hours duty solicitor scheme that has been voluntarily operated by the Birmingham Law Society. Anyone faced with a legal emergency out of office hours has been able to contact the duty solicitor. The phone number of the duty solicitor is widely publicised. It is not a secret number. It is a well-known number that is contained in most telephone directories whether private or those issued by British Telecom. The person answering the telephone will automatically give the phone number of the duty solicitor who is operating in the Birmingham area.
366
Many of the calls are not made by the person who has been arrested. Very often, if it is her son who has been arrested, it will be the mother. Or it will be the wife anxious about her husband who has been hauled off to the police station. The relatives are able to make this direct contact with the duty solictor. Obviously, then, the duty solicitor can immediately go to the police station and be of the utmost assistance.
There is, however, a problem that has been brought to my attention. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the fact that I did not fully understand what he said. Much of the language is rather technical. I understand, however, that there will be regional numbers on what he called Air Call PLC. If that is wrong, I stand to be corrected. I understand that this number will operate on a regional basis, although, there again, I may be mistaken. I gather that the West Midlands, which is based on Birmingham, is to have a Coventry number. This seems a waste of time when one considers that Birmingham has a population of nearly one and a quarter million people. Be that as it may, there is perhaps some legal reason for it. It is, however, I would have thought, contrary to what we in Birmingham would have wished.
I am led to understand that the number is only available for the police to call out the duty solicitor. If that is the case, my concern is to discover what help this offers to the mother who has seen her son arrested or the wife who has seen her husband arrested. I am concerned that distressed relatives and even friends might not be able to be as helpful as they would like to be towards persons whom they love and whom they wish to assist. I may, of course, be entirely wrong. I would be glad to be corrected by the noble and learned Lord if that is so.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, may I first thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate for the compartively friendly welcome that these new proposals have received. I should like particularly to thank the noble and learned Lord Denning for seeing that this is indeed a great advance—an advance, as I have said, unparalleled in the rest of the world so far as I know. It is also a challenge to the legal profession. Obviously I must accept, and I do accept, the obligation of the Government to give fair and reasonable remuneration to those who participate in the scheme. I must, however, say that I believe that there is a certain professional obligation on the part of lawyers to participate in it. It is, of course, a scheme, for solicitors. I have not heard a great demand from the Bar so far. But perhaps that has yet to come.
I should like to put one or two general considerations which I think your Lordships should have at the back of your minds. We have been operating hitherto a scheme, in which there is a right, but not a statutory right, that costs the country between £1 million and £2 million. We were told by the Philips Commission that we should widen it. We were then costed at £6 million. We have now enlarged it in the light of undertakings, given first in another place by my right honourable friend who was then Home Secretary and later in this House by myself, I think on Second Reading—at any rate, in this House—that we would operate a scheme of the kind that is now envisaged. It will cost, on present estimates

367
and without any enlargement, at least £20 million. That is my best estimate.
We have therefore made the biggest single advance in this field for many years, one that is unparalleled in the rest of the world. It gives an opportunity to the learned profession, of which I am not a member but with which I have been associated as a member of the complementary Bar branch of the profession all my professional life, a real challenge to be seen to add to the enormous services that it provides, for the community in the way now proposed.
But this must be seen, as I said in opening, in the light of the actual money which we are spending on legal services, and the increase that has occurred even during my present term of office. I ventured to point out on a recent occasion that I am in charge of the fastest growing social service in the whole field of social services. When I came to office in 1979–80, the whole expenditure from central funds on legal aid administration, civil advice and assistance, advice by way of representation and criminal legal aid added together came to £133 million—then for some reason there is added 12 pence. It may be that I have got my arithmetic wrong. I think that I was perhaps reading the odd pounds as if they were pence. If so, I apologise. The latest estimate that I have here for 1984–85, without this scheme, amounted to £346 million. That shows the scale of the operation even without this scheme.
One must be realistic in pressing the Lord Chancellor to make a large increase on what is proposed before we have any experience of the working of the scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who had evidently been instructed by solicitors on this occasion, having argued a good brief very efficiently in order to show some of the difficulties. I am not absolutely convinced, however, that we can go any further until we have some experience.
I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that these area telephone numbers are designed to show who is where at what time within a fairly large area. The reason is that those manning the telephone will know exactly who is out on duty within an area and who is available for duty. I am advised that this is the most efficient way that we can work it out. That is something which clearly must be determined in the light of experience.
May I say how grateful I was to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for the very generous and understanding way in which he put forward his own remarks. They were particularly valued as they came from a member of his profession. But at the end of the day I think we have to move where we know where we are.
Let me give a small example from my own experience—not as a barrister. The noble Baroness Lady Fisher, will realise that I was in another capacity on this occasion. Some years ago I was rung up in the middle of the night from a police station. They asked for my identity, which I gave. They said, "Do you know So-and-so?" He was in fact one of my children. They said, "We've got him here". I said, "What has he been doing?" They answered, "Obstructing the police". I asked, "What's the maximum?" They said,
368
"Twenty pounds". I asked, "Are you going to let him out?" and they said, "Yes, we're going to let him out on bail." I said, "I'm very pleased to hear it". If he had asked for legal advice, and had I been a solicitor instead of a parent, let us see what my position would have been. I would have had a standby fee of £60 to begin with; I would probably have had £1 for the telephone call with the police; if he wanted legal advice, another £10 for telephoning him; and this would have been, of course, a lower-tier case. Obviously the boundaries between the lower and the upper tier are flexible and the line has to be arbitrary.
Unless one is going to adopt a scheme which is incapable of proper financial control one has to draw arbitrary lines to deal with what is fundamentally an extremely flexible situation. Rightly or wrongly the Government have said that there is no offence, however humble—not even obstructing the police for the maximum of £20; and in my earlier example the child had been attempting to direct traffic in a certain place on Boat Race night clad, I believe, in a pair of underpants, for which he was subsequently fined the maximum—to which this statutory right does not apply, if the suspect (or whatever one may call him) is housed in the police station. I think that we have to see how we progress before going to the lengths of looking at every possible case.
I take on board what has been said. I do not want to contradict it or to minimise it or to suggest that there is self-interest. Every profession is entitled to see that it is properly remunerated and to use its own knowledge of the background of its own expertise to ensure that we do not exploit it. However, I think that the next step must be to go forward.
For this scheme I have £20 million on top of a system which is at the moment costing the country only £1 million. I am doing it with the background of the figures which I have given. During the great part of the debate I saw the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, sitting on the Benches. He has not spoken but he wants a lot of money for the Health Service, and in the present financial situation I do not think that I could have done a great deal better than I have. Of course, there will be people who will say, "Shoot the Lord Chancellor!" They may be right; but then they will have to get somebody else to find a better scheme for them and I doubt that they will in this instance. Having said that, and thanked all the noble Lords who have spoken—the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, were most generous, and I have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot—I repeat that we are doing the best we can. I hope that the conductor will not inadvertently be struck by lightning before the scheme comes into effect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. No. 1879) be annulled.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not now move my Motion.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Protected animals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I must point out that if Amendment No. 1 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert ("circulation or the destruction of its brain").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I hope that the Committee might find it convenient if we discuss Amendment No. 2 at the same time.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 6, leave out ("central nervous system") and insert ("brain").
This amendment proposes a change to the definition of the point at which an animal is no longer regarded as living. Our proposals overlap those of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in his Amendment No. 2. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for the very helpful letter that he sent me covering his point and others as well.
Our proposals have two aspects. First, we intend that cessation of circulation alone may be taken as proof of death. This is because the best evidence available indicates that, except in very localised respects, and for a short while, all respiration ceases immediately upon the cessation of circulation. The inclusion of cessation of respiration as a requirement is therefore unnecessary.
Our second proposed change substitutes destruction of the brain for destruction of the central nervous system as a proof of death. The definition of the central nervous system encompasses not only the brain but also the spinal cord. The evidence which we have is that destruction of the brain alone causing the removal of all capacity for consciousness, thought, feeling and instinctual behaviour, means that an animal is no longer alive in any sense which is relevant to the purposes of this Bill even though its spinal cord may still be wholly or partially intact. We have thought most carefully about these changes and have consulted those most expert in this highly specialised and complex field. The alternatives which we propose will not weaken the protection given to animals. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Adrian: May I say first of all how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Minister of State for having pre-empted, so to speak. Amendment No. 2, which I very willingly withdraw. I can say no more than what
370
has been said already, but perhaps I can point out that there was in the Bill as it is drafted a certain ambiguity and the suggested amendment clears up that ambiguity in that one of the definitions of humane killing—I think the sixth one with respect to cold-blooded invertebrates—might under certain circumstances have left an animal which was killed humanely, but by the definition in Clause 1 still living, a protected animal. It seemed that it was worthwhile with a relatively simple and straightforward amendment to remove this difficulty. I am very much in support of what the noble Lord the Minister has said and I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulated procedures]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("cause") and insert ("have the effect of causing").
The noble Lord said: This is only a very small drafting amendment. Subsection (4) refers to:
"the effect mentioned in subsection (1)".
It would seem to be a good idea to make subsection (1) refer in terms to the effect mentioned in subsection (4). The amendment achieves that objective. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Clause 2(1) states that "a regulated procedure" is:
"any experimental or other scientific procedure applied to a protected animal which may cause that animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm".
All references elsewhere in Clause 2 to the:
"the effect mentioned in subsection (1) above",
can only relate to this infliction of:
"pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm".
There is nothing else in Clause 2(1) to which they could refer. However, I appreciate and share the desire of the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, to ensure that the Bill should be clear and unambiguous, and I am quite happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am very much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. It may also be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10 and 11:
Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("; and
(c) the animal is a protected animal throughout the series or combination or in the course of it attains the stage of its development when it becomes such an animal.").
Amendment No. 9: page 3, line 10, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 13, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 18, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments are linked and are designed to achieve a single and worthwhile objective. The amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 21, deals with the situation where a procedure is applied to an immature form of an animal (a foetus, an embryo or a larval form) which is not yet a protected animal because it has not achieved the stage of development specified in Clause 1(2). The amendment provides that any procedure applied to such a form of life shall be a regulated procedure, and thus subject throughout to the controls provided by the Bill, if during the course of the procedure it reaches the point at which it would be regarded as a protected animal. At present the creature would receive no such protection.
The other amendment to Clause 2, and the three associated amendments to Clause 3 are all consequential amendments. They reflect the fact that, as a result of the change which we propose to the protection of immature forms, a procedure may be a regulated procedure whether or not it is applied to a "protected" animal.
I believe that these amendments introduce a useful improvement to the Bill and the protection which it affords animals. I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 5:
[Printed above.]
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question about this amendment, because I must say that I find difficulty in following the English of the new paragraph (c). It says:
"the animal is a protected animal throughout the series or combination or".
and it seems to me that there should then be inserted the word "if", so that it reads:
"or if in the course of it",
and then,
"it attains the stage of its development when it becomes such an animal".
At the moment it does not seem to me to be grammatically correct, but I shall bow to the noble Viscount and his advisers if he is quite sure that it makes sense.
Viscount Davidson: I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied when I say that we shall have a look at the matter and check on the grammar. I cannot give him an answer directly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("decerebration and any other procedure for rendering an animal insentient").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 of the Bill sets out what circumstances shall be disregarded in considering what may cause an animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, The first of such circumstances which is enumerated is the use of an anaesthetic or analgesic.
372
That is reasonable enough because an animal may be inadequately anaesthetised or it may recover from it unexpectedly.
However, the second of those circumstances is a process referred to as "decerebration". I wish to argue that there is a quantitative difference—indeed, a qualitative difference—between anaesthetising an animal and decerebrating it, and that difference allows me to say that a decerebrate mammal or bird cannot indeed be caused pain, suffering or distress. That is essentially because in a mammal or a bird the parts of the brain that are concerned with the conscious appreciation of pain, suffering or distress have been irreversibly removed by the process of decerebration—that is, in effect, the removal and the destruction of that part of the brain which is the cerebral hemispheres, the basal ganglia, the thalamus, and part of the mid-brain. It is difficult to see what may be considered lasting harm to an essentially brainless body.
My suggested amendment does not remove the necessity for both a personal licence and a project licence for the actual operation of decerebrating an animal. However, it would allow decerebrate animals, when under an appropriate project licence, to be used in practical classes for university students, for physiology and for medical students as, indeed, they are at the moment used under the 1876 Act. Unless that is allowed I fear that the inevitable difficulties of obtaining and—as I understand it—paying for personal licences for all the undergraduates in such a class, will mean that such practical class teaching will, if not disappear, become very much more uncommon.
I am very well aware that there are difficulties here because, while the removal of the cerebral hemispheres and thalamus makes birds and mammals essentially irreversibly insentient, it may not be quite so sure in the case of fishes and amphibia. It is true that the process of decerebration is hardly used at all in lower vertebrates, but I am aware that that is a potential difficulty. I believe that the practical teaching of doctors is a sufficient reason for giving this matter a good deal more thought and I should like to see the general principle of exempting decerebral mammals in particular and putting them outside the operation of the Act.
I hope that others who are concerned essentially with the teaching of doctors will support me in this matter because I believe that the Bill as presently drafted will inhibit very considerably the practical teaching of medical students. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I have no wish to oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend, but out of pure curiosity I should be glad to know whether a decerebrated animal can really and truly be called alive, since everything in the way of sensation has gone. Surely the heart and other organs all function from the brain? It would be difficult to know how a decerebrated animal is really still a living animal.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, replies to the amendment he will be able to tell us whether there is any reason why he is content that the word "decerebration" should be left in when it occurs three or four lines further on in the same subsection?
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I am well aware, as we all are, of his great experience in the medical field. As he described, at present the decerebrate animal receives no protection from the law. The only point at which the 1876 Act has applied is during the act of decerebration itself and then only for warm blooded animals. The decerebrate animal is undoubtedly alive, but it is rather difficult to describe exactly what "alive" is. It is almost completely intact, it is breathing spontaneously and with intact circulation and its basic physiological processes continue.
Though decerebrate mammals and probably birds cannot experience pain—this the noble Lord said—the position regarding amphibia, as he also said, and fish is much less certain. And irrespective of whether pain is felt or not, they are all intact living animals whose dignity we have a duty to respect and protect as best we can. It is the firm view of the Government that it would be wrong to deny such animals the protection afforded by this Bill. We have the support of many scientists in this. Of course, it is not our intention to refuse to license well-justified work on decerebrate preparations and indeed we shall, as we do now, expect scientists to use this and other means of ensuring that their work is painless instead of doing work which may cause pain or any other kind of suffering.
On this business of whether animals are alive, and perhaps to help the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I understand that as well as breathing spontaneously and having an intact circulation frogs will hop under this condition and evidently birds will perch. But I have to tell both him and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that the amendment would prevent the kind of improvement in the position of the decerebrate animal which they need. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will to some extent be reassured by what I have said, even though there appear to be differences of opinion between scientists on this, and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Adrian: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think that in some sense, and certainly in the sense that it is put out, even in the amended sense, the decerebrate animal comes within the definition of "living" in this Bill because it has an intact circulation, one that is operating, and it has not suffered a complete destruction of its brain. The reason why I did not remove the word "decerebration" from the second part of the subsection was the operation of decerebration, and I do not, clearly, wish the actual decerebration to be outside the operation of the Act. I only wish the animal to become outside the operation of the Act when it has been decerebrated. I am content to withdraw this amendment, but I hope that what I have said about the teaching of medical students will be taken into account in any further guidelines or deliberations that may be made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 35, after ("the") insert ("sole").
The noble Lord said: It occurred to me that a researcher might put an identity ring in an animal's ear and might take the opportunity to impregnate the ring with some irritant substance in order to study its effect
374
upon the ear. If the animal came to no lasting harm the researcher might argue that he did not need a licence for that work because identity rings are specifically exempted by this subsection. I am not saying whether or not that argument would succeed, but the intention of the subsection is totally to separate identity work and research work. If that be so then the inclusion of the word "sole" at this point makes that abundantly clear and would not enable the researcher even to put forward the argument that I think he otherwise might. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, arising from that amendment, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister if he would clear up one point. Would the ringing of a bull be covered by this provision? If a bull is rung the purpose is not for it to be identified (although I suppose it identifies the creature as being a bull) but it does not give any indication of its name or number. I have given the Minister no notice of this question so perhaps he could write to me—but if the ringing of a bull is a minor agricultural operation then this subsection should include ringing for that purpose as well as for identification.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to answer the noble Lord in about 10 seconds—even quicker it seems. Ringing a bull is an agricultural practice and therefore is not covered in this amendment.
I can reply quite briefly to the amendment. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is to emphasise that under Clause 2(5) humane methods of ringing, tagging or otherwise marking animals for identification can only be exempted from the provisions of the Bill where carried out for the single purpose of enabling identification of the animal. The Government believe that Clause 2(5) contains an important exemption. The limits of the exemption must be clear to all concerned and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, emphasises those limits. I am grateful to the noble Lord and as this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box at the Committee stage of a Bill I am particularly happy that I am able to accept his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am doubly grateful at being able to provide the opportunity for the noble Viscount to have this happy experience.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("procedure") to end of line 3 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: I hope we have established a precedent which will last for the rest of the Committee stage, but somehow I doubt it. This amendment to Clause 2(7) would ensure that killing would be a licensed procedure by whatever method it was carried out. I understand that in some other countries in Europe, particularly the Netherlands, the view is taken that, even if the methods used is a humane method, it is possible to kill in an unhumane way if it is done by inexperienced persons. I am sure that noble Lords will

375
know that killing an animal is not always an easy matter; it is always possible, even if somebody has been doing it for some time, for things to go wrong. That is the more so if it is being done by an inexperienced person. While the method may be humane, it is necessary for people to have some training and to gain some expertise before they can carry out even a humane method. This amendment would ensure that that was the case. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I notice that the word "procedure" is mentioned in this amendment, and I wish to raise a matter of procedure. My noble friend has been very inconsiderate to the Committee in putting down 20 amendments yesterday for the Committee stage today. Those of us who have been following this Bill closely and wanted to devote ourselves to it throughly were at a disadvantage today in not finding these amendments until we saw the Marshalled List at lunch time. That is not good enough. I know we work without rules here, but we shall soon have to have some. Otherwise, I think we shall have an imposition on the patience of the Members of the Committee.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend, who put down one-quarter of the total amendments to this Bill yesterday afternoon, will exercise forbearance towards the Members of the Committee for the remainder of our proceedings. I say this in the kindest way. I have always had the greatest regard for my noble friend. However, it is not as though he had thought about these amendments at the last minute and it was urgently necessary to put them down at a late hour. He knew about them quite a long time ago. In those circumstances, I think I am entitled to a mild protest because we are working very much against time on this Bill and we have a long way to go. When one finds this number of amendments put down at the last minute, and one also has regard to the fact that more than half the total number of amendments at this Committee stage come from two noble Lords, one has some indication of the balance, which I think we should restore in the course of our proceedings.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, foretold, I have to start by disappointing him. I cannot accept this amendment. As he has described, it seeks to make the killing of a protected animal a regulated procedure in all circumstances. This would have the rather curious effect of requiring personal and project licences for all killing of animals, including, for example, getting rid of the mice behind the skirting-board, or killing poultry or any kind of animal for human consumption. I cannot think for a moment that that is what the noble Lord intended; but, anyhow, that is its effect.
The point about Clause 2(7) is that if an experimental animal is killed by an accepted and humane method the animal is not going to suffer as a result of the procedure and there is no need to license it. Suitable persons, who will not necessarily be licensees themselves—for example, a trained animal technician or a vet—must be in a position to kill an experimental animal lawfully if the circumstances
376
require it. The standard humane methods appropriate to various types of animal are specified in Schedule 1, which has been drawn up with the advice of experts and of people with longstanding experience of laboratory practice. However, if a method not listed in the schedule is used for some reason in killing an experimental animal, then the safeguard of the Bill's protection is clearly desirable.
Clause 2(7), I believe, achieves a proper balance, and the amendment proposed would disrupt this in an unacceptable way. I hope the noble Lord will note that, and that he will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.
Lord Melchett: I certainly shall not press the amendment, and I take note of what the noble Lord says—that the amendment goes much wider than I had intended. I shall study what the noble Lord has said; it would seem to me to contain some good sense. If necessary, I shall come back to it. However, I suspect that the noble Lord has satisfied me.
Perhaps I may trespass on the Committee's indulgence and reply to my noble friend's criticism of the fact that my amendments were tabled rather late. I certainly apologise for that, and in particular I apologise to my noble friend if it has caused him any inconvenience. He will, know that many of these amendments were available to him, as they were to other noble Lords interested in the Bill, some time ago. I think it is fair to say that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite had the amendments for some time before they appeared in print. However, I apologise if any inconvenience has been caused.
I must say that I had expected that we should be taking more than one day on the Committee stage of this Bill, as indeed seems to be likely. It is a very important matter. I hope there is no intention on anybody's part to rush through it; and I know that everyone would wish that Parliament should have plenty of time to consider the points. I apologise if I have caused any inconvenience to any Members of the Committee by the fact that the amendments, under my name at least, did not appear in print until today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Prohibition of unlicensed procedures]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 11:
[Printed earlier: col. 370.]
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 9 to 11):
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("a protected") and insert ("an").
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Personal licences]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not issue a personal licence under this section unless it contains the conditions set out in Schedule (Personal Licence Limitations and Conditions).".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with Amendment No. 12, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 15, 25, 27, 45, 66, 80, 81 and 82:
Amendment No. 15: Clause 5, page 4, line 14, after ("programme") insert ("unless it contains the conditions set out in Schedule (Project Licence Limitations and Conditions) and").
Amendment No. 25: Clause 6, page 5, line 33, leave out ("and").
Amendment No. 27: page 5, line 37, after ("purpose") insert (", and
(c) unless it contains the conditions set out in Schedule (Conditions of Designated Scientific Procedure Establishments).").
Amendment No. 45: Clause 10, page 7, line 35, at end insert ("in addition to those set out in Schedules (Personal Licence Limitations and Conditions.) (Project Licence Limitations and Conditions) and (Conditions of Designated Scientific Procedure Establishments) to this Act.").
.Amendment No. 66: Clause 21, page 14, line 1, after ("conditions") insert ("in addition to those specified in Schedules (Personal Licence Limitations and Conditions), (Project Licence Limitations and Conditions) and (Conditions of Designated Scientific Procedure Establishments) to this Act").
Amendment No. 80: After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
PERSONAL LICENCE LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
1. Limitations, breaches of which constitute an offence under the Act

(1) No licensee shall carry out a regulated procedure for which authority has not been granted in his or her personal licence.

(2) No licensee shall use any type of animal not authorised by his or her personal licence.

(3) No licensee shall carry out any regulated procedure unless authorised by a project licence.

(4) No licensee shall carry out any regulated procedure in public or carry out any such procedure which is shown live on television for general reception.

(5) No licensee shall carry out any procedure for the purpose of acquiring or demonstrating manual skill.

(6) No licensee carrying out any regulated procedure shall use any neuromuscular blocking agent in place of an anaesthetic.

(7) No licensee shall induce muscle paralysis (or relaxation) using neuromuscular blocking agents without authority from the Secretary of State.

(8) Licensees shall carry out the procedures for which they have authority only at the place or places specified in their personal licences.

(9) Any animal which at the conclusion of a series of procedures for any purpose is suffering or is likely to suffer adverse effects shall forthwith be humanely killed.

(10) If it appears to an inspector that the effects of a procedure on an animal are too severe or that the animal is suffering considerable pain or distress, the animal shall be removed from the procedure and be given suitable treatment or forthwith be painlessly killed.

(11) The licensee shall not carry out a regulated procedure on any animal previously subjected to a regulated procedure.

(12) Where an animal has been subjected to a series of regulated procedures for a specific purpose, and has been given a general anaesthetic for any of those procedures and subsequently allowed to recover, then it cannot later be subjected to another regulated procedure for a different purpose. The only exceptions to this are (a) where the anaesthetic was given solely for the purpose of immobilising the animal, or (b) the procedure performed was surgical preparation of the animal for a subsequent procedure.

2. Conditions of the licence

(1) It is the responsibility of a personal licence holder to ensure that all cages, pens or other enclosures are clearly labelled. The labelling must be such as to enable the inspector to identify the project in which the animals are being used, the responsible personal licensee and the principal procedures involved.

(2) The licensee shall take effective precautions, including the use of alternative techniques not using living animals, sedatives, tranquillisers and/or analgesics, to prevent or reduce to the minimum level consistent with the aims of the procedure any pain, distress or discomfort in the animals used.

(3) If it appears to a licensee that the severity condition or conditions in a project licence may have been, or are likely to be, exceeded, then it is the responsibility of that licensee to notify the project licence holder of the situation as soon as possible, so that he may consider what action may need to be taken.

(4) In all circumstances where a licensee is aware that an animal is in severe pain or severe distress which is not at once terminated he will ensure that the animal is painlessly killed forthwith by a method appropriate to the animal specified in the list attached to this licence or by such other method as may be authorised by the personal licence under which the animal is killed.

(5) It is the responsibility of licensees to ensure that suitable arrangements exist for the care and welfare of animals during any period when they are not in attendance.

(6) It is the responsibility of licensees to ensure that, whenever necessary, immediate veterinary advice and treatment is obtained for the animals in their care.

(7) Where a personal licence is issued subject to a condition of supervision the licensee will adhere to the requirements of the supervisor.

(8) Before moving any animal undergoing a regulated procedure from one establishment to another or elsewhere the licensee must obtain the permission of the Secretary of State.

(9) Before releasing into the wild any animal or groups of animals that have been subject to procedures, the licensee must obtain an appropriate certificate of fitness from a specified expert, normally a veterinary surgeon, or other suitably qualified person.

(10) The following condition is to be observed when performing procedures without anaesthetics; no operative procedure more severe than simple inoculation or superficial venepuncture may be performed.

(11) The following conditions are to be observed in all procedures performed under an anaesthetic: —

(a) all procedures shall be carried out under an anaesthetic of sufficient depth to prevent the animal, during the course of the procedure, being consciously aware of pain arising from it;

(b) with the exception of animals on which a procedure is being performed under terminal anaesthesia, the animals upon which procedures are performed shall be treated with appropriate precautions customary in veterinary practice.

(12) Where a licensee has applied for the first time for permission to use neuromuscular blocking agents, he will, unless specifically exempted by the Secretary of State, give the inspector 48 hours notice of the performance of any procedure involving use of the relaxants. This condition shall not apply to decerebrate preparations.")

Amendment No. 81: After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
PROJECT LICENCE LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
1. Limitations, breaches of which constitute an offence under the Act

(1) No person shall carry out any procedure authorised by the project licence unless also authorised to do so by a personal licence.

(2) Procedures under the authority of the project licence shall be carried out only at the place or places specified in the licence, unless otherwise authorised by the Secretary of State.

(3) No person working under the authority of the project licence shall use any neuromuscular blocking agent in place of an anaesthetic.

379

(4) No person working under the authority of the project licence shall induce muscle paralysis (or relaxation) using neuromuscular blocking agents without authority from the Secretary of State.

2. Conditions

(1) It is the responsibility of the project licence holder to ensure that the inspector is notified at the earliest possible opportunity if the severity limit (given in sub-paragraph (6) below and to be included in any project licence at the time of issue) appears to have been exceeded or is likely to be exceeded.

(2) None of the following animals shall be used in any regulated procedure authorised by the project licence unless it has been bred at a breeding establishment designated by a certificate issued under the Act: mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, dog, cat and primate.

(3) It is the responsibility of the project licence holder to maintain a record, in a form to be approved by the Secretary of State, of all animals on which procedures have been carried out under the authority of the project licence, showing the names of personal licensees who have carried out the procedures on the animals. The record shall be open to examination by an inspector at any time.

(4) The project licence holder shall send to the Secretary of State, within 14 days, at the latest, of the close of each year, a report, in a form approved by the Secretary of State, giving details of the number of animals used and the nature of the procedures performed under the authority of the project licence during the year.

(5) The project licence holder shall submit such other reports as the Secretary of State may, from time to time, require. In particular, he shall, if so required, submit, on the expiry of the project licence, a list of publications relating to work carried out under the authority of the licence.

(6) In any procedure severe pain or severe distress is prohibited. The degree of severity imposed shall be the minimum consistent with the attainment of the objects of the procedure.

(7) Unless otherwise authorised, no animal on which a regulated procedure is performed under the authority of the project licence may, during the course of the project, be used in any procedure authorised by any other project licence.").

Amendment No. 82: After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
CONDITIONS OF DESIGNATED SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE ESTABLISHMENTS
1. The establishment shall be maintained substantially as at the time the certificate of designation was granted, except where variations are authorised by the Secretary of State.
2. Unless authorised by the Secretary of State or agreed with the inspector there shall be no variation of the use of the designated room(s) in the establishment.
3. Unless otherwise authorised by the Secretary of State, only the type(s) of protected animals specified in the certificate may be accommodated in the establishment.
4. The establishment shall be appropriately staffed at all times to ensure the well being of the protected animals.
5. The person named in the certificate as responsible for the day-to-day care of animals shall ensure that any protected animal found to be in severe pain or severe distress which cannot immediately be terminated, shall be painlessly killed forthwith.
6. None of the following animals shall be allowed to be used in a procedure unless it has been bred at a designated establishment: mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, dog, cat, primate.
7. The certificate holder shall ensure that a record is maintained of the source of all animals accommodated in the establishment, and that such a record is available for inspection by the Inspector or for submission to the Secretary of State.
8. All primates, dogs and cats accommodated in the establishment which are used or intended for use in procedures shall be clearly and adequately identifiable by a method of marking approved by the Secretary of State.
9. The certificate holder shall notify the Home Office of any proposed change in:

(a) the title of the designated establishment;

(b) the name (including forenames) of the certificate holder;

(c) the name(s) (including forenames) and qualifications of the person(s) responsible for day-to-day care of the protected animals;

380

(d) the name(s) (including forenames) of the veterinary surgeon(s).

10. Without prejudice to condition 5 above, the person named in the certificate as responsible for the day-to-day care of protected animals in the establishment shall consult the veterinary surgeon named in the certificate in any case in which it appears to him that the health or welfare of a protected animal accommodated at the establishment gives rise to concern.
11. The designated veterinary surgeon, in any case in which it appears to him that the health or welfare of a protected animal accommodated at the establishment gives rise to concern, shall notify the personal licensee in charge of the animal and the person named in the certificate as responsible for the day-to-day care of animals.
12. All protected animals must, at all times, be provided with adequate care and accommodation appropriate to their type or species, and environmental conditions in all parts of the establishment where animals are kept shall be checked at least once daily.
13. Adequate measures shall be maintained to prevent the escape of animals.
14. Quarantine and acclimatisation facilities shall be provided as necessary.
15. A health record relating to the protected animals in the establishment shall be maintained under the supervision of the veterinary surgeon, and shall be available for inspection by the inspector.
16. Inspectors shall be provided with access to all parts of the establishment where protected animals are accommodated, at all times.
17. Adequate precautions against fire shall be maintained at all times.
18. The certificate holder shall take all reasonable steps to prevent the performance of unauthorised procedures in the establishment.
19. Whenever it is necessary to kill an animal, the killing must be carried out in an approved humane manner.").
I think it has been said in a number of quarters that whereas this Bill is in itself a step forward from the previous Act, nevertheless it is not terribly satisfactory for those who have the welfare of animals at heart unless one takes with it the various codes of conduct. I am delighted to know the draft guidelines have already been published. The draft guidelines contain some very helpful suggestions, and are quite defintely a step forward. Yet, in themselves, they are not subject to either of the usual procedures used for statutory instruments. Thus they can be altered or scrapped at will by the Secretary of State. Also, they are not enforceable through the criminal law.
I think we have an example of how these matters can go wrong in what happened under the last Bill, when, in the first 15 years of its life, a number of experiments were not allowed by the Secretary of State. That was a practice which was soon given up and licences were given practically automatically. It seems to me that we need some statutory backing for these very important guidelines. The various amendments I have put forward in some places actually amend the guidelines as suggested by the Government. However, at the moment I am trying to find the Government's reaction to what seems to me a very useful suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, described the nature of the Bill in a few characteristically crisp words. He said:
"It is not a Bill which is full of prohibitions and taboos, but it is a Bill which allows the Home Secretary to have his own prohibitions and taboos and to be accountable to Parliament for the use of them",—[Official Report, 28/11/85; col. 1006.]

381
These amendments, and the suggested new schedules which they support, cut across the whole principle of the Bill being in essence an enabling measure, with the detailed operation of its controls spelt out in guidance notes and codes of practice and available for easy scrutiny and amendment.
In addition to the objections of principle, the proposal would also involve very substantial practical difficulties. Though, exceptionally, Clause 10 contains references to four important licence or certificate conditions, the details of these and all the other standard licence or certificate conditions is not set out in the Bill, but is contained in the draft guidance notes. This is because the standard conditions may be subject to fairly frequent change, to reflect changing circumstances and improvements in scientific standards and public demands for animal welfare, and also, of course, because as conditions they are not intended to have statutory effect, and, of course, the conditions hinge on many complex technical or subjective factors which are not capable of being defined with the precision necessary for the contents of an Act of Parliament.
A further consideration is that the standard conditions are just that: they will not be applicable in every case but inclusion in the Bill would apparently necessitate this; and they will often be supplemented by other conditions tailored to fit individual circumstances.
As to the licence or certificate limitations, these are requirements imposed by the provisions of the Bill. As such they are already contained in the Bill, in the relevant provision. They are set out in the Home Office guidance notes in order to give licensees or certificate holders a concise account of their responsibilities in statute. Thus their repetition in the Bill is wholly unnecessary.
5.30 p.m.
A further point of difficulty is that the Home Office guidance note from which the proposed new schedule is taken is only in draft form. Its final form will not be settled until the Bill has completed its passage. This difficulty points up the importance of maintaining the essential nature of the Bill as an enabling measure. If any change in the standard conditions required a new Act of Parliament going through all the usual stages in your Lordships' House and another place, we should be far better off sticking with the 1876 Act.
I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that the Government view these amendments which grave concern. Their intention goes counter to the spirit in which the Bill was prepared and introduced, and their effect would be to reduce the clarity of the Bill and to hamper the aministration of its controls. I am bound to say that the changes which the noble Lord proposes will do untold damage to the carefully constructed and finely balanced Bill which has been the subject of so much consultation and upon which so many experts are more or less agreed. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division. If he does, I must ask your lordships to reject it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: May I say a few words on this? The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, kindly
382
referred to what I said on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has raised the fundamental point as to what sort of Bill this is to be. A great deal of consideration has been given to this in the light of the nature of the 1876 Act and all the experience of it, which I think gave us almost the worst of both worlds from the point of view of animal protection; because there was little in the 1876 Act which really did it and it depended entirely upon the administration by the Home Secretary, equipped with little statutory power to do many of the things he felt able to do and the conditions that he felt that he could lay down for the grant of licences and certificates. Now we are trying to overcome those difficulties.
My own approach and that of many of my friends who have been in these consultations is this. Let us get the essentials of the matter in the Bill. Let us get the framework there and then ensure that powers required by the Home Secretary to work it and to administer it are there in his hands and that he is properly accountable for what he does. I say again that this Bill puts animal welfare straight into Parliament because that is where the final judgment is going to rest. It is the body to whom the Home Secretary is going to be accountable to an extent that he has never been accountable before. And he is equipped with the powers to exercise and he submits to the accountability for which the Bill provides. That is the approach to this Bill. The practical side of it is that the more one does in detail on these difficult problems of refinement and definition, of operations and of activities, in this delicate field of technology and the handling of living things, the more complicated the law becomes.
A little later we shall find out how difficult it has been to get clear a practical situation to which there would appear to have been a commonsense answer. When one puts it into the language of the statute law it becomes extremely complicated because almost every supposition, every likelihood of a situation, has to be provided for. I strongly support the approach that we have adopted to the Bill.
My final word on it is this. This has been my passionate desire in approaching this Bill. Let us have a Bill which basically will stand for a long time as the structure upon which change can take place. In this field we want enough flexibility and enough room for manoeuvre and response from the Home Secretary to take heed not only of the changing conditions of scientific research and usage but to take account of public opinion. It has been changing over the years noticeably and I think that it will change noticeably over the years to come. If we can keep the two things in harmony then I think we are set upon the right path.
I urge the Committee to stand by the principles and the framework of the Bill and to reject the idea of going into a lot of detail in schedules which will take hours to get through and we will not be satisfied when we have done so. Let us leave it to guidelines, difficult as they may be to enforce; but the co-operation that we are seeking and must have as a condition of the success of this Bill will surely come more from the voluntary response of the professional people to the guidelines that have been agreed for them and can be amended if they are wrong. Much better do it that way than any other.
The Earl of Halsbury: I rise to support the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. This agreement betwen myself and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not a new one. It was manifest the whole way through the Select Committee on my own Laboratory Animals Protection Bill. It was again manifest when I saw the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill through a Committee of the Whole House the second time round in the year following its passage on the nod following the work of the Select Committee. I entirely endorse everything the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, says.
We are legislating for the next 100 years. One hundred and nine years have passed since the 1876 Act. All sorts of circumstances that we cannot foresee are liable to take place. The whole question from the start has been: what do you put in the Bill; what do you put on the licence; what are the powers you give the Home Secretary; how do you call him to account in Parliament? What you need is a maximum measure of elasticity to enable this Bill to survive the next 109 years, just as the 1876 Act has survived until very nearly the present moment. I entirely endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I support the Government rejection of this amendment and I hope that your Lordships will do the same.
Lord Northfield: I wonder whether I may add one or two words. If the noble Earl had not risen, I was going to quote his very eloquent words at Second Reading on this point. They hit me very forcibly when I read them in col. 1026 of Hansard and I am glad that he almost used the same words again today. The other point which has been missed so far is that some of the subsections in the noble Lord's amendment conflict with parts of the Bill. If your Lordships will look at subsection (6) of the new schedule proposed by Amendment No. 80, it reads:
No licensee carrying out any regulated procedure shall use any neuromuscular blocking agent in place of an anaesthetic.
That is in direct conflict with Clause 17 where such procedures can be expressly authorised by the Secretary of State so that you would have an inconsistency in the Bill if you put that in. Again, if noble Lords will look at page 15 of the Marshalled List, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, says that animals in severe pain should immediately be terminated. The Bill says in other parts "alleviated". He is tightening up everywhere and giving no discretion. If you look at the preceding page of the amendment, page 14, in sub-paragraph (6), he says that in any procedure severe pain or severe distress is prohibited. That is a totally new concept to the whole of the remainder of the Bill.
I could give six or eight examples like this where the noble Lord, far from just repeating the statutory guidelines, is so tightening them up as to make a new Bill in very important respects that are in the main text. I hope that even if he returns to this—and I hope for the most eloquent reasons given by my noble friends that he will not do so—at least he will realise that he is challenging the basis of the Bill at several points.
Lord Auckland: There is nothing worse than legislation which contains long and irrelevant
384
schedules. I think the danger of this amendment, as I see it, is that it is making the schedules, if carried, completely unworkable. The first schedule in particular contains details of methods of humane killing. It has been gone through very carefully since the 1876 legislation, and as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has so rightly said, if we are going to go into a lot of what is surely irrelevant detail about related schedules we are not going to achieve the purpose of a very desirable Bill at all.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be very brief, but it appears to me that the proposed amendment introduces rigidity into the Bill and that ought not to be the aim. Of course we would expect the licence-holder to act within the spirit of the guide and to observe the letter of it; but the point has been well made that with the passage of time and the advances in knowledge it may well be demonstrated that a particular situation will arise which has not been foreseen at this stage. In that event, you would not be able to keep pace with a development without introducing more amending legislation. Therefore we think there are very good reasons why this amendment should be opposed.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The reason for the amendment, as I said in putting it forward, is that in fact there is no safeguard in this Bill against the discarding of the very good and important ideas involved in the guidelines. No one is saying that it is something which would happen immediately but I think we should be careful to try to provide safeguards if possible.
I absolutely take the point that noble Lords have been making about the nature of the Bill and the necessity of making it a framework; but within that framework I should just like to see whether there was not some way in which the good intentions which have been put forward in the guidelines could now be preserved. I take absolutely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that in fact it would not be sensible to adopt these amendments and put them into the Bill as they stand. There is a real problem, which possibly has not been dealt with in this debate so far, but certainly I have no intention of pursuing this particular set of amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw this particular one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 42, after ("person") insert—

("(a) who does not satisfy the Secretary of State that he is competent in the skills of anaesthesia, analgesia, euthanasia and animal care; or

(b) who is").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I think it might be for the benefit of your Lordships if we were to take the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, No. 14. Both amendments are for the same purpose and I certainly have no preference for mine over his.
Amendment No. 14: Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("or to any person unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has experience in the use of anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia, and in the handling and care of animals").
The purpose is quite clear on the face of it. In almost everything important which involves the safety of either people or animals we do ask that competence should be shown. A driving licence is required as a demonstration of competence in the relevant skill; but it is not unknown for scientists without even any of the particular skills which have been spelt out here to become licensed experimenters. If that is so, suffering may then be caused quite unnecessarily to their experimental subjects. This amendment is part of the NSPCA resolution passed at the Society's Annual General Meeting in June 1985, and it is part of NSPCA policy. I therefore hope that in one of its forms the Government will see their way to incorporating it. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for having taken these two amendments together. I would agree with him and I do not really mind which one is adopted. But I want to make the point here that the administration of an anaesthetic is a compicated matter. There are some very powerful anaesthetics available and they need to be understood. I have a relative who was engaged in medical anaesthetics, and it involves a five-year course. That is dealing with human beings of course, but we may take it that the conditions today laid down, which are in Article 28, include the stipulation that the licensee must be 18; and otherwise it is open to the Home Secretary to make up his mind as to whatever conditions he considers appropriate. The noble Lord may wish to put it in the guidelines or he may wish to put it in the Bill. What I would say is this: it is essential that it should stand somewhere.
There are two points I have made here: one is the administration of an anaesthetic and the other is the handling of animals. The handling of animals to some people is quite simple. They know how to do it. But there are many people who do not have a clue as to how to do it. Handling of that sort is second nature in a laboratory in an experimental situation where people are constantly handling animals of different sorts. I think it is necessary that this should be made part of the training, and it should be quite clear that it is an integral part of training for anyone who receives a licence.
Lord Northfield: I wonder whether I might suggest one flaw in the two amendments, apart from the fact that I believe it is better to leave it to the Home Secretary to satisfy himself that the applicant has had an appropriate level of training. As I read the Bill as drafted, the effect of the amendment would be this. If you have someone who is going to be trained under a licensee—I shall take this slowly because it is slightly complicated—he has himself to have a licence. So you would end up, with this amendment, in the rather ridiculous situation that a person who is just beginning to be trained would never be able to have a clearance because he had no experience in anaesthesia, analgesia and so forth. Therefore you would have a self-defeating situation for someone who is about to start training. He would never be allowed to start training because he could not get a licence. In those circumstances, I believe that the amendments are almost a nonsense.
Lord Melchett: If I might try to help my noble friend, I was glad to hear him say that he felt this should be left to the Home Secretary, because presumably he would agree that this fact should appear in the guide-lines which, I think I am right in saying, it does not at the moment—at least explicitly. Also, if I may say so to my noble friend, while his objection may apply to Amendment No. 14 I do not think it applies to No. 13, where what the Secretary of State is required to do is to satisfy himself as to competence and not experience.
Competence, it seems to me, may mean that the person has been adequately trained by somebody with the relevant experience, and so on. It does not imply that the person has actually to have carried out particular procedures. In all of this the Secretary of State, when he deals with an application from someone who has not had practical experience and indeed has not had a personal licence in the past, is going to have to be satisfied by those in authority over that individual that they are competent to carry out procedures which they then apply for a licence to do. That seems to me to be a difficulty the Home Secretary will be well used to facing because it is going to apply to everybody who is asking for a personal licence for the first time.
Lord Auckland: It is common ground, I think, that we all want to see qualified people carrying out these experiments, whether it is the giving of anaesthetics or anything else. I think there are existing provisions in the Bill which ensure this. Clause 4 (3)(b) says:
"has knowledge of the qualifications, training experience and character of the applicant".
Clause 5(2) states that a project licence holder must undertake overall responsibility for the programme specified in the licence. I have myself visited a number of these testing laboratories and have seen the experiments carried out. I think the Committee should take on board the fact that, as I understand it, only registered companies can carry out these experiments. Companies which are not registered are not allowed to do this, which excludes what one might call the "cowboys", who exist in certain other undertakings.
So under those two subsections there is sufficient protection given, to the extent that a person administering an anaesthetic is trained. If perchance somebody was not trained in giving anaesthetics, it must be done under proper supervision. So I think that in both Clause 4 and Clause 5 there are sufficient protections to make this amendment unnecessary.
The Earl of Halsbury: There is some danger here of taking an over-simplistic view of what we mean by an anaesthetist. It covers a very wide spectrum of skills. If you see an anaesthetised pig on the operating table, with its abdominal wall opened in order to remove some of its super-ovulated eggs for the purpose of artificial fertilisation, it is a two-man job. You have to have an anaesthetist as well as a surgeon. But if you are going to operate on a mouse that is a one-man job and the anaesthesia for a mouse is a very simple matter.
You have a large jar with a pad of cotton wool at the bottom soaked in ether. You pick up the mouse by its tail and lower it on to the pad. When it falls over, manifesting unconsciouness, you pick it out, you

387
attach it with rubber bands to the board on which you are going to operate, and you put a puff of cotton wool over its nose and a dropping bottle which sprinkles ether on to it. You just keep the little piece of cotton wool dry, and the operator goes on with the operation and conducts the anaesthesia himself as he goes along.
There is some danger with a very generalised amendment of this kind of making the situation too rigid. It is much best left to the Home Office inspectors and the Home Secretary to satisfy themselves that the individual has the requisite knowledge of anaesthesia for the procedure that he is going to operate.
Lord Adrian: It also seems to me that there will be many procedures under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, which do not require competence in the skills of anaesthesia, analgesia or euthanasia. These are quite mild procedures, many of which are now licensed under the 1876 Act. It is necessary to have a licence to give particular diets or to keep an animal on restricted fluids for a period. I do not see that it is sensible to require competence in the skills of anaesthesia, analgesia or euthanasia for those people who do not need them for the project which they are to be allowed to carry out.
Lord Glenarthur: I respect the concern which both the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have expressed for the need to ensure that all persons who are licensed to carry out experimental procedures on living animals shall be competent to carry out their work. It is certainly a concern which the Government share. But I am afraid that I cannot agree with the manner which either amendment proposes.
The work which is to be carried out by individual personal licensees varies enormously, and as a result so, too, do the skills required of a licensee vary. For example, many licensees will not have to carry out procedures which require the animal to be anaesthetised. In other situations, a licensee will have a specially trained colleague available to apply any anaesthetic required and will not himelf require to have such skills or the same detailed knowledge of the subject. I think that this was very much the theme which underlay the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
It is the essence of the personal licence system that the licences to perform particular procedures will only be provided for applicants who are judged competent to carry them out and who have, where necessary, the associated general skills. In short, the licence will be tailored to fit the applicant and the circumstances.
By contrast, these amendments seek to impose blanket requirements: all licensees will be required to have the specified skills and to the same level, irrespective of whether the skills or the specified level of skills will be required. This would not be an appropriate way in which to manage the system of personal licensing, and would not improve upon the protection which the animal would at the end of the day receive. It would involve much nugatory work for the applicant, any referees he may call on, the inspector, the Home Office and the Secretary of State.
I respect the sincerity and concern of both of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont,
388
who moved the amendment. But I hope that with the fuller description of how it would in practice work, such as was given by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I ask whether it is implicit in the words in the guidelines that whatever conditions are considered appropriate are brought into consideration when the Home Secretary is giving a licence where necessary?
Lord Melchett: If I may pursue the same point before the noble Lord replies, it seems to me that there is a much stronger argument, and one with which the noble Lord did not deal, for putting a reference in the guidelines, if only to tell people applying for a personal licence or for a project licence that, if they intend to carry out procedures where anaesthesia will be necessary, particularly on primates, cats or dogs in cases which will be complex, then that is something about which the Home Secretary will require some information. Surely that would be useful. In my brief intervention earlier I said that I had not as yet been able to find anything in the guidelines which refers particularly to this, and it would be helpful if there was something there.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked whether it was implicit, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether it could be made explicit. It is certainly implicit, which I think reassures my noble friend. I am certainly quite happy to see whether it is possible to find a suitable form of words to make it explicit in the guidelines. I should not like to be held to exactly what that form of words should be, but I think it is something that can be taken care of. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord and my noble friend will be further assured.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I absolutely take the point that my amendment as drafted is too comprehensive and too sweeping. The points which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made are very valid. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has given an undertaking to look at the possible inclusion of this in the guidelines, and in view of that I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Auckland: On Second Reading I drew attention to Clause 4(4), concerning the granting of personal licences at the age of 18. Since then I have had consultations with both the chemical and the pharmaceutical industries and have been considerably reassured. But I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can indicate briefly—or, if it will take time, will write to me—some of the experiments which a person of the age of 18 can carry out. I am still not clear from the Bill what supervision will be required.

389
This is quite an important point on which we need some reassurance. An 18-year-old carrying out an experiment will want to make his name in the company. He will show the maximum degree of attention and sympathy where needed but it is a young age for some experiments. I wonder whether my noble friend can help the Committee on this point.
Lord Somers: I should like to support what the noble Lord has said. I have felt uneasy from the beginning about this age of 18. A young person of 18 may have very great technical ability but it does not follow—and I think it is highly unlikely—that he or she will have the sensitivity to do the job properly and to observe all the extremely tight regulations. I should have thought that 21 would be a much more appropriate age.
6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly try to help my noble friend and the Committee on this point. First, I think I am correct in saying that the age of 18 applies to the existing 1876 Act. The personal licence which this is all about establishes the obligations and restrictions which apply directly to the individual researcher by means of conditions, and above all those conditions will make the personal licensee responsible for the proper care of animals in his charge and for taking appropriate action to prevent and limit suffering.
I share the concern of both noble Lords that those who are inadequate in any way—age being a part of it—should not undertake this kind of work. But somebody of the age of 18 will be of only limited experience, even if technically able, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, suggests. This will be realised and understood fully by those under whom he is working. I hope it is obvious but I shall spell it out that somebody of that age would undertake only very simple work under the immediate supervision of someone who is much more experienced and who would be a licensee. This is all taken care of in the licensing procedure. I do not think it is necessary to spell out the age of 21 in the way that my noble friend suggests because one could of course have somebody there who may be of that age but may be technically less competent. I hope there is reassurance in what I have said.
Lord Auckland: I am much obliged to my noble friend the Minister. For my part, he has completely reassured me.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Project licences]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("or secondary").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which is to leave out secondary schools from the list is perfectly clear though I am aware that it is probably contentious. I do not see the sense in preventing the Secretary of State from allowing, if he thinks it appropriate, procedures in a secondary school. I would certainly not anticipate that many
390
schools would wish to obtain the necessary personal and project licences or indeed that the Secretary of State would be often convinced that it was right to grant those licences. But I see nothing in principle against allowing the Secretary of State to make that judgment if application is made to him.
I can well envisage worthwhile procedures, very mild procedures, in schools—such as anaesthetising a fish to immobilise it in order to observe microscopically the capillary circulation in the fins—which could in my view be usefully allowed. But my general point is one which I think has been made already. In a Bill whose essence is to allow matters to be dealt with by the judgment of the Secretary of State, I think it foolish to put unnecessary restrictions on what the Secretary of State may judge to be appropriate in circumstances that may arise.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support the amendment. Do remember that we are talking about sixth form boys who are going on to university where they hope to get degrees in biology, physiology, taxonomy or whatever it may be. Do not put barriers and obstacles in the way of allowing them to gain the qualifications they need to be able to take on this work. I am sure that the amendment will lead to a situation which will be handled responsibly, and I hope that the Government will be able to agree to it.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that we are not talking about sixth forms; we are talking about secondary schools, which is totally different.
Lord McGregor of Durris: This is a very important amendment. It is important in principle. Yesterday the House discussed higher education and from the Government Benches the importance of science, natural and applied, and of technologies was heavily emphasised not only for its economic but for its total implications. Here we are, as the noble Earl has just said, putting harriers in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by sixth formers. This is the sort of barrier which affects the attitudes of parents and of people being taught. I am told that undergraduates are already entering medical schools and biology departments without any experience of dissection and that the situation is deteriorating. This is not the way we enter into new educational attitudes and I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid that I strongly oppose the amendment. I should like first of all to echo what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said. The amendment does not talk of excluding simply sixth forms or sixth form colleges but all secondary schools—that is children from the age of 11 upwards presumably. Secondly, a number of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment have at least implied that this will discriminate against some children as opposed to others. That is not the case. The Bill will apply to all young people going to university. They will not have had the opportunity of carrying out the procedures which would be governed by the Bill. They will all he in the same position. It will not discriminate against some people as against others.

391
Thirdly, nobody has yet mentioned the widespread use of alternatives to live animals in schools and in unversities for teaching purposes. We are talking about teaching people at secondary school level, not about people engaged in research, product testing and the rest of it—the areas where the use of animals is most generally and forcefully defended. We are talking about teaching young people, and on the whole even in universities there is a very strong move away from using live animals and towards using a number of other techniques such as films, recordings, models and so on, with which some noble Lords will be more familiar than I.
If the amendment were passed noble Lords who support it would be opening a can of worms. Secondary schools would become the scenes of violent controversy about whether or not live animals should be used. It is wholly undesirable from the point of view of those who support the amendment, let alone from the point of view of the animals which would be needlessly suffering as a result of it. I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord Auckland: Since 18 is the minimum age at which project licences can be granted, presumably the number of children to which this amendment would apply is very limited. If you are going to get youngsters into this industry it is necessary that they should start as young as is reasonably possible. Provided that they are not called upon to undertake work that is outside their calibre, it seems to me that secondary schoolchildren—and I come into contact with many of them, as some of your Lordships do—should, if they are suitable, be given the experience of at least seeing how such experiments are carried out. They could then gain some idea about how the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and other industries that need to undertake animal experiments do so, so that when they become qualified or are able to help in such experiments, they will have been able to see for themselves what the atmosphere in an industry is like.
Lord Somers: Those who are opposing this amendment seem to be dividing secondary schools from sixth-form colleges. I remind your Lordships that there are still such things as public schools, which, from the point of view of education, would be looked upon as secondary schools. It would be a great pity to bar the sixth forms of those schools from anything in the way of experiments. After all, the sooner that they learn about these matters the more likely they are to be responsible when they finally come to do the work.
Also, it must be remembered that sixth-formers would be undertaking that work under responsible and guiding hands in the shape of their master. It would be a great pity to place a barrier in their way.
Lord Melchett: Does the noble Lord really mean to say that children, whether in a public school or a state school, would be undertaking such work themselves? The amendment deals with the use of live animals for the purposes of education or training. Unless there happens to be an 18 year-old teacher in a sixth form, it will not be people of that age who will be doing such work—if it is a case of the use of animals in training.
392
The question I hope your Lordships will ask yourselves is this: what will we be teaching children about the importance of animals and about reducing their suffering if we decide that they can be legitimately used by young people of that age, and having the lack of specialisation that sixth-formers would have, in order simply to teach or educate them? I do not believe that that is justifiable.
Baroness Phillips: Speaking as a teacher. I should like to know what is the difference in Clause 5 between "the advancement of knowledge" and "education or training". When I worked in education, I always thought that I was advancing the knowledge of my pupils. There must be some distinction that is not immediately apparent.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may add to what was said by my noble friend Lord Melchett. Most of the comments made have been about the education and interests of the children. It goes without saying that it would be of great advantage both to education and to children to have experiments on animals. But less has been said about the precautions and measures taken for the well-being of the animals in those schools. I have no doubt that the masters would be in charge but they might be under some great stress. I cannot see that adequate precautions would be taken for safeguarding the well-being and care of animals if they were used in secondary schools.
Lord Glenarthur: I note the concern that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and by others, about the need to ensure that children are equipped for life and are properly taught. The noble Baroness. Lady Phillips, queried the difference between paragraphs (d) and (e); that is, between "the advancement of knowledge" and "education or training". When I looked at the subsection as she spoke, I began to wonder myself. However. I believe that the "advancement of knowledge" is intended to reflect increasing or developing techniques from a particular existing base and is not directly relevant to children, whose case is covered specially by paragraph (e).
I have to say that the proposed amendment would contradict paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the proposed Council of Europe convention, which states:
"Procedures shall not be permitted in secondary schools or other institutions of education and training or equivalent or lower level except where the course of education or training concerned is specifically directed at preparing for a career involving the performance of procedures or the treatment or care of animals and the procedures entail no severe or enduring pain or severe or enduring suffering".
6.15 p.m.
It has always been the Government's intention not to allow procedures of that kind in schools. At present, experiments on living animals conducted under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 are not permitted in schools. The most that can be done in schools is removal of the brain in cold-blooded animals. The best-known example of that is the pithing of frogs. I myself certainly remember being instructed on that particular procedure; not on the pithing itself but on what was done with the frog afterwards. I remember that there was an elaborate series of wires and levers

393
connected up to a pointer that indicated that the frog's heart was beating. The fact that one could see that the frog's heart was beating was neither here nor there; it was expanded on a large scale.
That adds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. In point of fact, it is the person doing the instructing who would carry out the procedure and not the young pupil concerned. I have to say that under Clause 5(3)(e) of the Bill, even the pithing of frogs in schools would not be permitted.
I wonder whether the proposition of this amendment does not go contrary to the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Auckland. We feel that 18 is young enough for anybody to join in such experiments and carry out the work, which is what we are talking about. Experimental animals need to be treated with dignity and I believe that they need to be treated by adults. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put his finger firmly on the point when he suggested that there were perfectly good alternatives nowadays to carrying out such experiments. There are marvellous videos available, which are probably much easier to make sense of than the kind of work that I watched being carried out not all that long ago. Furthermore, the equipment now available to demonstrate the effects of, for example, the beating heart of a frog, by the use of electronics and so on, has changed out of all recognition. I suggest that such alternatives are perfectly acceptable.
The amendment would alter the position considerably. It would allow painful or distressing experiments on living animals to be conducted in secondary schools. For the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, secondary schools, for the purposes of this Bill, include public schools. That would be a damaging and retrogressive change. The present restrictions on work in schools and our proposals to tighten them up further are based on the important idea that impressionable schoolchildren (and many of them will be impressionable) should not witness the deliberate infliction of pain on animals and procedures capable of causing pain or suffering, even if it is for their instruction in science—particularly when knowledge can be obtained using some of the techniques that I have just described.
At this of all times, when we are concerned about people picking up the wrong ideas from watching the wrong kind of work being done on animals, it would be a risk if we were to go the other way. I do not believe the amendment is necessary. I do not believe, either, that it is desirable, although I fully understand the points that have been made about the need to ensure that young people are thoroughly taught and that they gain everything they can from the techniques they are studying. My point is that that can be achieved in other ways.
Lord Adrian: Faced with the greater guns of the European Convention, I do not propose to press this amendment. However I should like to say that my point in raising it was not only because of my deep concern about the education of medical students and biologists, which I believe begins in school and certainly in the sixth form, but also to make the point that I would regard the Secretary of State's judgments and powers in this Bill as entirely adequate to take care
394
of all the points raised by the noble Lords who opposed the amendment.
In general, I am very much in favour of alternatives, and so on, fur use in schools. I certainly would not advocate the use of painful experiments in schools, but I find it sad that no procedures of this kind will, if the Bill is passed, be either demonstrated or used in schools. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I take the words "forensic inquiries" to mean inquiries relevant to the administration of the criminal law. It is a rather imprecise phrase. May we have one or two examples of the kind of work that is contemplated under this heading? The Committee can then judge whether a project licence ought to be granted for such work and perhaps see whether we can narrow down paragraph (f) to be more precise than just referring to "forensic inquiries". I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: After agreeing with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in his previous two amendments I regret to say that the honeymoon is now over—temporarily, no doubt—and that I must disappoint him by opposing this amendment I appreciate that it is a probing amendment and I shall endeavour to give a few examples of what he wished to know.
The skills of the Forensic Science Service will be known to us all. Forensic inquiries are a vital part of our weaponry in the unceasing struggle against criminal activity. Without forensic evidence many crimes would go unsolved. Many criminals, some of them guilty of the most appalling crimes, would go free. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would be to make it illegal to use living animals in any regulated procedure under this Bill if the work in question was for the purpose of forensic inquiries.
This is not an amendment which a responsible Government could view with enthusiasm. We cannot accept that this Bill should be used to hamper the fight against crime—for that would be the effect of accepting this amendment. Ours is not a new or novel view. It was the view taken by Parliament when it passed the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Section 12 of the Act empowers a judge to licence the conduct of an experiment on a living animal for the purpose of inquiries in a criminal case, and not the Secretary of State. Therefore, our experience of the work is second hand.
However, I can give the noble Lord three examples. The first is placing an animal in an area where there is good reason to suspect environmental contamination and where physical detection methods are not adequate and have yielded no information. Secondly, the testing of a possible poisonous substance by the administration of the substance to the animal is only done if physical methods of analysis have failed to identify the substance or its effects. The third example is producing from an animal antiserum against biological fluids from a suspect source. However. I

395
emphasise these are very rare occasions. The power has been used only once every few years, but where it is needed it is essential.
Nor is this solely a British view. The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes also includes forensic inquiries as a purpose for which experimental procedures may be performed on a protected animal. The Government believe that this is an entirely correct position and one which should be reflected in the Bill. I am sure that it is one which the vast majority of the population would support.
I know that the noble Lord is keen to root out unnecessary work on animals but I must tell him that forensic inquiries will be used only for a very important and special purpose and all the normal safeguards will apply. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord and that he will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: The noble Viscount said that this procedure was used only very rarely—I believe "once every few years" were his words. Can he tell us when a judge last granted a licence, or whatever it is a judge grants, so that an animal could be used for forensic purposes? Can the noble Viscount also indicate how long before that a licence was granted? Is it every two or three years, every seven or eight years, or how long?
Viscount Davidson: I confess that I have no idea of the answer, but I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Airedale: If it is a question of letting a criminal go free every few years balanced against the welfare of animals I do not know what answer one arrives at, but I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his reply and I am sure that the Committee will be glad of the information. I do not wish to spend further time on this, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert—
(" ( ) A project licence shall not be granted for the study of wounds inflicted by weapons.").
The noble Lord said: I think almost everyone views with repugnance the cold blooded infliction of wounds on animals in a laboratory by using a weapon. If the human race was more sensible there would not be any weapons. Unfortunately, in this wicked world not a day passes when nations are not at war with one another somewhere in the world.
I should have thought that there was such abundant evidence of the effects of wounds caused by weapons upon human casualties from military hospitals all over the world that this information could be collated—perhaps with the help of the Red Cross and the World Health Organisation—and made known to the medical profession worldwide. Surely this information on the effect of wounds on human casualties is vastly more valuable than information about the effect upon animals, who do not always react to experiences in the same way as human beings do. I
396
should have thought that a good systematic collation and distribution of medical knowledge taken from the battlefields would be so vastly superior that we could dispense with this abhorrent business of inflicting wounds on animals in cold blood. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support this amendment. I raised this matter on Second Reading. As it is not possible to wound a carcase presumably these experiments are carried out on live animals, and they would have to be fairly large live animals. I understand that many of the experiments are carried out on pigs, presumably by the Army and perhaps by the police: but I do not know who does them.
If it is true that animals are fired at to wound them on purpose, that is fiendishly cruel. Of course, it is presumably done to find out how a certain velocity of bullet affects animals. But I too do not understand why they cannot get sufficient information from human beings who have been wounded in their hundreds of thousands in the course of war, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. When I heard that this was being done—people deliberately wounding animals—I was astounded. Actually, I find it very hard to believe. I wonder whether the noble Lord has his facts right because I am amazed.
It is true that when an animal is shot with a high velocity bullet and is not hit in the right place—the heart—then of course the bullet paralyses the nerves of the animal, for a time which is dependent upon the size of the animal and velocity of the bullet. I sincerely hope that, when my noble friend the Minister replies, he will tell me that such shooting of live animals in order to judge the effect of wounds made by certain calibre weapons or velocity of bullet does not in fact happen.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Much as one acknowledges the good intentions of the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, I for one oppose this amendment. The basic purpose of this Bill, as I understand it, is to eliminate pain in animal experimentation and not to eliminate death. Most of us are prepared to see animals killed for food, even though we can survive perfectly well without animal protein. If we are prepared to see animals killed for food, why are we not prepared to see them killed in order to save the lives of our servicemen, provided that the animals are fully anaesthetised, humanely killed afterwards and feel no pain at any stage?
Lord Glenarthur: The first thing I ought to make quite clear—and I endeavoured to make it perfectly plain at Second Reading—is that animals are not used for the performance-testing of any sort of weapon. I hope that is perfectly clear to the Committee. I endeavoured to stress it before, but it is just possible that I did not stress it sufficiently.
This amendment is about the study of wounds and not the infliction of wounds by a weapon. It is the study of the actual wound. What the noble Lord's amendment would do is to prohibit all scientific work using live animals in the study of wounds inflicted by weapons, which I fear would be quite unacceptable. I take it that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was referring to the effects of a weapon to see

397
whether one particular weapon was better than another weapon, and not to the actual study of the wound concerned.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord has made it clear that he is referring to the work undertaken by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry undertakes wound studies to increase knowledge of their effects. That will contribute to the improvement of treatment. While alternative means are used wherever possible, some use of animals remains essential, as it does in most other areas of medical science.
Wound studies are permissible under the 1876 Act as they are directed to saving or prolonging life or relieving suffering and would fall naturally under the "permitted purpose" in Clause 5(3)(a) of the present Bill. All the Ministry's work on animals is licensed by the Home Secretary and is subject to inspection—and rigorous inspection—in exactly the same way as other work governed by the legislation. I can assure the Committee—and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought this point out—that of course the animals concerned are anaesthetised before that sort of work is done and there is no chance whatsoever of any suffering to the animals.
It is essential work. I know that wounds can occur. This was vividly demonstrated to all of us on our television screens during the Falklands War, when we saw the sort of injuries that sadly happened at that time, and a very great deal was learned from them of course. However, there are times when techniques cannot be fully explored by the wounds that the battlefield inevitably produces, and the fact is that the benefits which extend from the other work go not only to servicemen but to civilians who may suffer appalling injuries as a result of war or acts of terrorism.
We cannot neglect our duty to provide the best possible treatment and care. Of course I realise that the whole subject is an emotive one and perhaps to some people causes distress, but I can assure your Lordships that I have looked at it in considerable depth and learned of the sort of procedures that go on. I can assure the Committee that I have the utmost respect for those who carry out this work and their wish to see no suffering caused whatsoever. But I am also left with the very clear impression that the work that goes on, in limited numbers, is essential work and the nation would lose a great deal of benefit if this work were to fall through.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will accept that explanation and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I did not think I would want to press this amendment to a division. I raised this matter because I know that it is of tremendous concern to people all over the country who have an abhorrence of the idea of the deliberate shooting of animals with weapons. I should not like people outside to be able to say. "The House of Lords completed a whole Committee stage without even referring to this horrible business of cold-blooded shooting at animals". It will now be possible for them to say, "Well, at least the matter was raised, they argued it out and they came to a decision".
398
I think that it has been useful from that point of view, if from no other, to have this debate, and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall take into account the availability of products with similar or identical effects in determining the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. We are in a part of the Bill where I appreciate that we are treading on dangerous ground, in the sense that the Government, and those who have agreed with them in the way the Bill has been drafted, have taken the view that specific procedures which cause great offence to the general public should nevertheless not be ruled out on the face of the Bill but that we should rely on the guidelines and implementation of the guidelines and the licensing system—if this is what happens in practice—gradually to reduce the number of experiments or indeed to eliminate altogether certain types of experiments which are unnecessary or are unnecessarily cruel to the animals involved.
I am well aware of that general background and I am quite prepared to go along with it, but I think that there are one or two areas where there is sufficient and quite legitimate public concern, which I believe would not be opposed by scientists in the terms in which it is put, and where Parliament might be justified in giving the Home Secretary some general guidance. That is why I have tried to draft the amendment in this way: to ask the Secretary of State to take into account the availability of products with similar or identical effects. The idea that very large numbers of animals are used for testing new products which simply mimic those which are already available—the "me too" products as they are called—is one which causes very widespread public concern, and concern not just among the public. Very large numbers of animal experiments, the majority, are carried out to develop and test new drugs and appliances—nearly 2 million in 1984.
As I understand it, the vast majority of new drugs—and I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he can tell me whether this is right—are not new formulations but new versions, duplications or combinations of existing products. In a survey of medical products marketed between 1971 and 1981 in the United Kingdom, the Medicines Division of the Department of Health and Social Security concluded that even these new chemical entities,
"have largely been introduced into therapeutic areas already heavily over-subscribed … for conditions which are common, largely chronic and occur principally in the affluent Western Society. Innovation is therefore largely directed towards commercial returns rather than therapeutic need".
I am well aware that that is disputed by the pharmaceutical industry. I do not think that there is a need to try to resolve that dispute during this Committee stage, even if we were able to, which I doubt. It seems to me enough for us to agree that for large numbers of animals to be treated simply to develop products where perfectly reasonable alternatives are already available and where the new product does not offer any significant advance is unacceptable,

399
and that is something which the Home Secretary should take into account—I have put it no higher than that—in deciding whether to grant a project licence under the Bill when it becomes law.
As I say, I have tried deliberately to draft the amendment in the spirit in which the Bill has been produced and to offer guidance to the Home Secretary in an area where there is a great deal of legitimate concern which is shared by scientists. I think that the answer that would come from the pharmaceutical industry or from scientists is that the products which are defensible are new products, which offer some new advantage or benefit that is not currently available. I do not think that those would be covered by my amendment, and so it does not seem to me that that is an argument against it. On that basis, I hope that the amendment would find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have an amendment following which I think has substantially the same objective, but it is badly drafted and I accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is much more to the point. I have very little doubt that this amendment will put a thought into the mind of the Home Secretary; indeed, I have little doubt that it is there already. But I believe that there is considerable advantage in letting it be seen in the statute that where things can be done by other means they should be done by other means and that the Government accept that that is the right principle. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is aware of the matter and will take it into consideration, and I think that substantially it is covered by the conditions laid down in the guidelines. But—
Lord Glenarthur: May I clarify in my mind whether my noble friend is speaking to Amendment No. 20?
The Earl of Selkirk: I am speaking to Amendment No. 19. I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I said that my amendment was badly drafted and I was trying to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in what he said. If I have said something amiss, I apologise. Let us be frank. We want the Bill to be accepted.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Can the noble Earl tell us which amendment of his is badly drafted? I cannot see it. His Amendment No. 20, together with my Amendment No. 24, deal with a totally different point. Does he have another amendment which we have not seen?
The Earl of Selkirk: I must apologise for being so confusing. I was seeking to be as clear as I could be. What I said was that I was not moving Amendment No. 20 because it was badly drafted for various reasons, and I was trying to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. If I have failed to make that clear to the noble Lord, I deeply apologise. I was explaining why I thought that it was useful to have the provision in the Bill so that it could be seen that that was the intention of Parliament. I doubt very much whether in his decisions the Home Secretary will vary from that, but I think it is worth putting it forward clearly. To many
400
people it is an important element for all to see, whereas people cannot see exactly what is in the mind of the Home Secretary. I hope that the noble Lord will give this serious consideration.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: I should like to support both amendments, or either, whichever one is moved. The reason is this. We all know that alternatives to experiments at the moment are few and far between, but we all hope that with research they will grow and become more numerous; and when they do so we should make provision for it being compulsory to use them.
Lord Melchett: I think that we are in danger of getting confused. With respect, the noble Lord is not supporting my amendment but Amendment No. 20, which is on a different point. My amendment does not cover alternative means of experimentation or investigation. It deals with experimentation or investigation which is designed to produce a product where an alternative product already exists. I suggest that it is quite a different point from the point covered in Amendments Nos. 20 or 24.
Lord Somers: I apologise to the noble Lord. He is very good at making things completely incomprehensible, as is usual in politics. But I entirely agree with the point of his amendment: I also agree strongly with what the noble Earl said.
Lord Northfield: I wish to make one or two remarks. On the face of it no one can complain that my noble friend wants to put this matter clearly in front of the Secretary of State, but the sort of thing that he talked about gives a false impression. It is too bad of him to say that some of what he calls the "me too" drugs are sought for by an irresponsible industry trying to woo or to look after rich patients. That is an exaggeration which now that it is on the record must be counteracted.
Let us take a specific example of where similar—to use the word in the amendment—drugs are available. Let us consider arthritis. Many poor people have arthritis, just as many rich people do. Anybody looking for more drugs to treat arthritis, for a start, is not necessarily looking for drugs for rich people. Secondly, many patients respond differently to similar drugs for arthritis, and so it cannot be said that the existence of a similar drug means that it is unsatisfactory to produce yet another one. The same patient may also vary in his response to a drug throughout the course of treatment. He may get used to one, and a similar drug may give him the relief when the effect of the first has worn off. No single product can treat all the symptoms and underlying causes of the disease.
Let me try to put the record a little straight on another point too. The industry would be crazy to be as irresponsible as my noble friend suggests. As I said at Second Reading, it frequently takes a minimum of eight to 12 years to develop a new medicine, and it may have taken substantially longer to discover it in the first place. It may often cost over £50 million. The industry is not silly enough to develop "me too" drugs

401
just for the sake of it, at a huge cost and with the risk that the patients will find the new drug no different from those available already. The industry is not mad. I understand the reason why my noble friend has put down the amendment, but I beg him not to exaggerate the situation.
Lord Glenarthur: I am responding to Amendment No. 19. Although my noble friend has referred to Amendment No. 20 and says that he does not intend to propose Amendment No. 20, which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is essentially on a different subject, I take my noble friend's point. I do not know, of course, whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will move his amendment, Amendment No. 21.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Amendment No. 24.
Lord Glenarthur: I apologise. I mean Amendment No. 24—just to prevent things becoming more confused.
This amendment is concerned essentially with "me, too" drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, brought out most of the points that I should like to touch upon. I shall touch upon them only briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, talks about commercial returns set against therapeutic needs. I have to say to him that I do not share, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, does not share, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett's hatred, if that is not too strong a word, or at any rate his apparent dislike, of the drug industry.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord is perpetuating something that my noble friend said. The quotation that I gave—I thought that I had stated this clearly—was from the Medicines Division of the Department of Health and Social Security. I was not quoting my own views. I am quite happy to give the noble Lord the reference to the quotation. It appears in a paper written for the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1981, Vol. 12, pages 453 to 463, by a Mr., Mrs. or Miss Griffin and Diggle. That is what I was quoting. It is my understanding that those individuals work for the Department of Health and Social Security.
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot refer, obviously, to that document now. I shall certainly look it up. Some of the names at least are reasonably familiar. The fact is that it would do a great deal of damage. What the noble Lord suggests, so far as I can tell, is that only one pharmaceutical company in the country should be allowed to produce aspirin, for example, prepared in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia. That seems to me to point rather in favour of nationalising every British company. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel that way. I certainly do not.
It also seems to run slightly counter to the debates that we had on an entirely different subject—those concerned with the limited list of drugs. And lengthy debates they were. They took place last year or possibly it was early this year. At that time, many of your Lordships expressed grave concern about any damage that that piece of legislation might cause to the British pharmaceutical industry. I remember some of
402
the comments coming from the Benches opposite. I am sure that I cannot add to the words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Not only have we strayed on to a totally different amendment in the debate, but it looks at moments as if people have not even read the amendment which, basically, we are discussing. It merely says that the Secretary of State "shall take into account". It does not say that he shall not issue licences if more than one drug company is producing the same kind of drug. It simply says that he shall take it into account. Knowing the way in which the noble Lord the Minister has been responding sympathetically to the amendments put forward, I was expecting him to say that the Secretary of State will, of course, take this into account, that it goes without saying that he will take it into account and that there is therefore no need to put it into the Bill. But, clearly, from the Minister's reply, that is not the case. If it is not the case that the Secretary of State will not take this into account, that is all the more reason that we should have the amendment and have it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Airedale: As a postscript to what my noble friend has just said, I see envisaged in this amendment a situation in which not every researcher knows all about the work that every other researcher in the world is doing in his particular field. A researcher goes to the Home Secretary and asks if he may have a licence to do this work. The Home Secretary says that the researcher may not know it, but a product has recently been evolved by a colleague of his (they may not know each other) and that he, the Home Secretary, is not prepared to give him a licence because the product that the colleague has evolved is similar to that for which the researcher is seeking a licence. My noble friend Lord Beaumont says that the Home Secretary can surely do that without the need for the amendment. I hope that he can. But if he cannot, let us have this amendment.
Lord Melchett: I should like to make another point before the noble Lord replies. I was rather unhappy about his first reply to the amendment. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that he had not taken into account, if I may say so, the words "take into account" in the amendment. I was not suggesting that it would be impossible for someone to produce a similar or, indeed, identical product but simply that this was a factor that the Secretary of State should take into account when weighing the benefit of developing the new product or a similar or identical product, against the disbenefit to the animals that the product will have to be tested on. I should have thought that this was a different point to that on which the noble Lord responded.
To take the argument one step further, the noble Lord rested his case on what my noble friend Lord Northfield had to say. But my noble friend did not actually say that the amendment was wrong. He simply stated that the DHSS had overstated the case for the amendment—or that my quotation from the DHSS, if my noble friend wants me to be precise, had overstated the case for the amendment. It is not

403
possible, surely, to have it both ways. Either this does not happen and therefore the amendment would cause no one any problems or, on the other hand, as the noble Lord seemed to imply in his first answer, it does happen and everyone should be able to produce his own version of an aspirin. If that is the case and if it is the view that the Home Secretary will take when looking at applications for project licences that might involve a "me too" product that he will say, "Yes, certainly, everyone should produce this, that or the other", then I think that there is a genuine concern and worry and an amendment of this sort would be needed in the Bill.
Lord Auckland: Is it or is it not the case that some companies specialise in a certain product for a certain condition, be it arthritis, blood cancer, cystic fibrosis or whatever? I presume that the purport of the amendment is to prevent project licences being issued to companies when a dozen or so companies may be doing research into the same condition. But there are surely some companies which specialise in a certain condition and carry out research into certain conditions, be it arthritis or whatever. Certainly, if that was the case, I should consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
Lord Melchett: That is neither the intention nor the effect of the amendment. The amendment says that the Secretary of State should not take into account what other companies are doing in research but what other products are already available in addition to the product on which the research application is made. So it is quite a different point from the one that the noble Lord raised. In any event, the amendment, if I may repeat myself for the third time, I think, does not suggest that the Secretary of State may not issue licences for that purpose but simply says that the Secretary of State should take into account the availability of already existing products when determining an application of this sort. That is quite a different point.
Lord Hunter of Newington: The starting point of this saga was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, reading a report from the Department of Health about drugs that had been used over a 10-year period. That was a retrospective study. The report said that a lot of these drugs were "me too" drugs. I do not believe that the people who started out to do the research work—research work tends to be into unknown terrorities—were trying to get "me too" drugs. A large number of generic companies in the world make drugs that they can make. The point being missed here is that people are seriously endeavouring, for very good reasons as well as commercial ones, to get new products. For example, the original valium was introduced by the drug company and some of its cousins were introduced widely in the first 10 years of its life. Now these drugs are being replaced by new drugs with a different kind of action, and a shorter action. If this kind of thing cannot go on, there will not be progress.
Lord Glenarthur: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has expressed the whole thing in a nutshell,
404
and extremely clearly. One of the reasons why my original, prepared speech in answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was so short—and I added to it—was that we certainly have not had time to take in every single aspect and to consult with the experts in the way that one would normally like to do.
I know that the noble Lord has explained why it was not possible to put the proposal down earlier, but I still believe that at the end of the day it is not sensible to proceed in the way that he suggests. All that I can suggest to him now is that we read carefully what has been said. I believe myself that there is no ground for giving way on this at all. However, I shall certainly study very carefully all that has been said by the noble Lord and I shall refer to the DHSS document which he and the noble Lord. Lord Hunter, mentioned. I hope that with the assurance that I shall at least read carefully what has been said, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I hope that when the noble Lord looks at this again he will not say that he thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has put this in a nutshell; because, with respect to the noble Lord, he has not. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, was saying that this amendment would impede a drug company in trying to evolve a drug superior to valium, this amendment would certainly not inhibit that. I feel quite sure about that.
Lord Hunter of Newington: The phrase in this amendment is,
"in determining the benefit likely to accrue".
That is a kind of guesswork. I should have thought that with the advisory systems which are provided for in this Bill the best possible information would be available to the Secretary of State. However, it is not always easy to determine "the benefit likely to accrue".
Lord Melchett: It is not, but this Bill places the duty on the Secretary of State to do just that in the case of every project licence application, a matter which was covered in some detail at Second Reading. The Secretary of State has to weigh up the relative benefits of the proposed research or testing as against the effect on the animals. That is something which I strongly welcomed about the Bill at Second Reading and which I should not want to see removed—as apparently the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, would. I think that that is a crucial part of the Bill and the package that has been put together.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this again, because I appreciate that he did not have very long to look at the amendment and, if I may say so, the noble Lord over-reacted to what I was suggesting. I was simply saying that in making this very difficult judgment—and we all appreciate that it will be a difficult judgment—the Secretary of State should take this matter into account. At the moment there is nothing in the Bill which says that the Secretary of State should take it into account. So far as I know, there is nothing in the guidelines which says that the Secretary of State will take this into account. I should have thought that the general view would be, yes, the Secretary of State should take this into

405
account. I do not think that it should necessarily be a determining factor.
There are many other things which the Secretary of State has to consider as well, but this is clearly an important issue. It is one about which there is very widespread public concern. I know that this is one about which there is a difference of view between the Department of Health and Social Security and the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Lord himself referred to the difficulty that the Government got into about the restricted list of products; but that was a difference of view between the Government of which the noble Lord is a member and the pharmaceutical industry. I had thought that in quoting a Government source in support of my amendment I might have struck a chord with the noble Lord, but apparently I had the reverse effect upon him and I am sorry about that.
However, I hope that the noble Lord will have a look at this again. It may be, as I suspect is the case in a number of amendments to Clause 5, that the Government would prefer to see something in the guidelines rather than on the face of the Bill. I deliberately moved the amendment in a way which I thought would leave that open to the noble Lord to say in response. He did not. I hope that the noble Lord might consider that before Report stage as he said he would, and if he has any further views perhaps he would write and let me know. If the noble Lord would confirm that he would do that, I should happily withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I said that I would willingly read with great care, but without commitment, all that the noble Lord had said. I am not taking anything away with a view to bringing something back at a later stage. What I said is that I shall carefully examine and read the noble Lord's comments, and indeed those of others who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Melchett: I did not ask the noble Lord to bring back an amendment at Report stage. To be clear, I asked the noble Lord whether he would write to me before Report stage if he takes any different view from the one which he has expressed today.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very happy to write to the noble Lord. But before doing so we shall all need to consider very carefully what has been said.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we seem to have reached a natural break point in this Bill. I should say that it will be appropriate not to return to this subject until 8 p.m.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Forestry (Modification of Felling Restrictions) Regulations 1985
7.7 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Forestry (Modification of Felling Restrictions) Regulations 1985, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 22nd October 1985, be approved.
The felling of growing trees in Great Britain is controlled by the Forestry Commissioners under their powers contained in Part II of the Forestry Act 1967. A licence has to be issued by the commissioners before felling can take place. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this requirement. These are contained in Section 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Act and in regulations made by the commissioners under Section 9(5) of the Act. For example, one does not need a licence to fell dead or dangerous trees, or trees growing in orchards, gardens, churchyards or public open spaces.
One of the most significant of the exceptions, however, is contained in Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. This lays down that a person may fell trees on land in his occuption or occupied by a tenant of his without a licence, provided that the aggregate cubic content of such trees—excluding any that are otherwise exempted from the requirement for a felling licence—does not exceed 30 cubic metres in any quarter, and that the aggregate cubic content of such trees which are sold in any quarter does not exceed 5·5 cubic metres.
The reasoning behind this exception was that woodland owners should have the freedom to cut some trees out of their woods in order to provide timber for their own needs, without having to go through the hoops of applying for a licence in every case. For many years this provision did not give rise to any significant problems. More recently, however, there has been growing concern over the fact that some landowners, albeit a minority, have made use of the provision, not to cut a few trees from a wood for fencing or for some other purpose on their farm or estate but to clear woods—to destroy them, if you like—in stages. This has been done with the object of making the land available for some other use, usually agriculture.
It has to be remembered that 30 cubic metres can represent about 30 fairly large broadleaved trees, or perhaps up to 100 smaller trees. Thus, over a period of, say, a year quite a large area of woodland can he removed, and this licence-free quota has been used by some people to get round the normal felling controls which ensure that the impact of fellings on the environment is fully considered before a licence is issued. What was intended as a sensible provision for normal woodland management has now come to be regarded, therefore, as a loophole in the regulations which places woodland at risk.
This problem was highlighted during the Forestry Commission's consultations over broadleaves policy, and the statement made in another place on 24th July by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland setting out the Government's policy on broadleaved woodland foreshadowed the present regulations in the following passage:

407
"To afford more immediate protection against the depletion of existing woodlands, my right hon. Friends and I have endorsed the Foresty Commission's proposal to reduce the volume of timber—both broadleaved and conifer—which may be felled without a licence from 30 cubic metres to 5 cubic metres per quarter, with a reduction in the volume of such timber that may be sold from 5.5 cubic metres to 2 cubic metres".
The making of these regulations by the Foresty Commissioners is, therefore, a follow-up to that statement on broadleaves policy although, of course, the new provision will apply to coniferous trees as well as to broadleaves.
Where there is a loophole the immediate reaction is to seek to close it entirely. In this case, however, we considered that, in practical terms and in fairness to the great majority of woodland owners, it would be unreasonable to require them to apply for a licence to fell just a few trees from their woods for their own use—hence the proposed retention of a small licence-free quota of 5 cubic metres a quarter. I do not think it can be claimed that this concession will place woodland at any real risk.
As your Lordships would expect, these regulations have been greatly welcomed by environmental interests. The proposal before us today has been carefully thought through after widespread consultation with environmental and land-using interests, as well as those in forestry and the timber trade. It should afford substantially increased protection for woodland, especially small woods, while continuing to give woodland owners the freedom to carry out very small fellings to meet their own unforeseen requirements. My Lords, I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee of last Session.]—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reason for the regulations. The regulations involve a big change, reducing the area from 30 cubic metres to 5 cubic metres. Of course, it is the old, old story: these provisions have been made necessary because a minority of people have taken advantage of the situation. It is extremely exasperating for those people who do the job properly. After all, as the noble Lord has said, woodland management covering a fairly large area of wood involves quite a few trees. However, the clearing of areas is a different matter. The taking down of trees here and there and replanting could require the figure which has been in existence in the past. I just wonder for how long that figure has stood the test of time and why it is necessary to make a change now. Has it been shown that large areas are being cleared? I think that the new regulations will stultify many people who manage their woods in this way.
Did I hear the noble Lord aright when I understood him to say that conifers came into the picture as well? Do the provisions include Christmas trees? I should like to think that they do not include Christmas trees because a great many people are growing quite large Christmas trees for what I shall term "the county council trade", and these regulations may be very hard on them.
408
The noble Lord said that there had been consultations with environmental interests and that the commission's ideas on broadleaf planting had also been taken into account. The two probably go together. I suppose that a woodland owner could apply for a licence if he felt that the quantity was too small for him to carry out his business properly. If he did that and received a licence to cut to the old figure, would he still be allowed to sell the old figure as well? That point will need to be cleared up.
Personally, I am not against the idea. We must control people who take advantage of a concession like this. However, the situation will need to be watched very carefully in the interests of people who go in for woodland management.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for the comments which he has made, and I shall try briefly to deal with some of the points which he raised. He raised the question of Christmas trees, which is very appropriate at this time of year. These regulations would not apply to the normal commercial use of Christmas trees. Felling for Christmas tree purposes would not normally be included. The noble Lord asked me when the 30 cubic metres regulation came into being. It has been in existence since 1951.
The noble Lord quite rightly raised a number of points which may easily be raised by woodland owners who have been applying their felling within the law and trying to do their best to keep within the law. First, let me say that, so far as those misgivings are concerned, it will by no means be inevitable that an owner will have to apply frequently for licences for comparatively small fellings. If he can identify in advance what his requirements are likely to be, he can apply for a single licence to cover his fellings for a specified period—usually up to two years. Moreover, if he brings his woodland into a Forestry Commission grant scheme and manages it in accordance with an agreed plan of operation, then his fellings can be covered under that plan for up to five years without the need for any licensing. It is really a question of persuading an owner to plan ahead. If he plans ahead and works in a co-operative way with the commission, then the effect of these regulations should be minimal as far as he is concerned.
For their part, the Forestry Commission accept that there may be some extra work as far as they are concerned, but they do not envisage any substantial increase in administration if owners plan sensibly ahead in the way in which I have described. Generally speaking, these regulations will be accepted in the spirit in which they are intended. It is certainly not intended to create any difficulties for those woodland owners who have been acting within the law. However, unfortunately a minority (as the noble Lord rightly said) have not been acting in that way and therefore it was felt necessary to reduce the number of cubic metres. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will accept the regulations.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I made the point that, having got a licence to fell the old quantity, would an owner get a licence to sell the old quantity as well?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords; I am afraid that he would not do so. The new quantities allowed for felling will also apply to selling.
Lord John-Mackie: I am sorry, my Lords, but if an owner wants a licence to fell up to the old quantity—that is his requirement—will he be allowed to sell the same proportion as he is allowed to sell now?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, that point is covered by, the explanation I gave to the noble Lord earlier. If he plans ahead and is able to describe to the commission in advance what his requirements will be, then, of course, he can have a licence for up to two years, or up to five years if it is within a Forestry Commission grant scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1985
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Protection of the marine environment from pollution by oil from ships is considered by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organisation. At its 20th session held on 7th September 1985 amendments were adopted by Resolution MEPC 14(20) to annex 1 of the protocol of 1978, relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (known as Marpol 73/78). The amendments come into force on 7th January 1986 and the order will enable changes to be made to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983, which gave effect to annex 1 of Marpol 73/78.
It is the desire of parties to the Marpol 73/78 Convention to aim for the complete elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment by oil and the minimisation of accidental discharge. These amendments are yet a further step in realising those objectives. In general, the amendments make provision for improvements in ship construction, pollution prevention equipment and operational procedures. The United Kingdom, which is particularly active in IMO proceedings, were responsible for initiating certain of these amendments.
The powers for making the order are contained in Section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. In particular, Section 20(1)(d) empowers the Secretary of State for Transport to give effect to any international agreement ratified by the United Kingdom so far as the agreement relates to the prevention, reduction or control of pollution of the sea or other waters by matter from ships. Under Section 20(6) of that Act the order is required to be laid under affirmative procedure.
The making of this instrument, which supplements existing legislation, is yet another important step toward reducing oil pollution of the marine environment and is in keeping with the United Kingdom's international obligations. The requirements are
410
necessary and in continuance of our policy in this field. I therefore recommend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining the order in such a clear way. We welcome the provisions contained in it. Dare we hope that the other measures which are to follow are those which need to be taken if we are to move positively towards better control of oil pollution around our shores?
It is unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government have refused to sign the Law of the Sea Convention. Because of their dislike of Part 11, which deals with seabed mining, the valuable provisions in other parts of the convention are not being implemented. There appears to be no legal reason why Her Majesty's Government should not incorporate the environ-mental provisions of the convention into United Kingdom legislation now if the will is there. Other countries have acted in advance of the convention, so why not us? For example, the three-mile limit is established by customary right, but many nations have already adopted the 12-mile limit which is part of the convention that we have not yet signed. The implications for pollution control are obvious and this would be a useful weapon in our fight to protect our seabirds and to protect our beaches from pollution.
I have one final small point. Article 218 of the Law of the Sea Convention makes it possible for states to prosecute ships in certain circumstances for discharges of oil outside territorial waters. We have established a precedent in dealing with fishery offences within the 200-mile zone and there is a real need for us to implement port state jurisdiction over oil pollution offences also, in an effort further to reduce the burden of oil pollution. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us if any of these further measures might be considered in the near future. With that said, we welcome the order.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the welcome to the order given by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She took me rather wider than the order into the Law of the Sea Convention. I heard clearly what she said and I shall certainly pass it on to the right quarters.
The noble Baroness also mentioned other matters that would follow from this order. It is possible that further and tighter controls will be agreed at the IMO in due course and these will come through in further amendments if and when they are agreed. But as I said in my opening words on this, much of the order we are discussing tonight was initiated by the United Kingdom. We have a very good record in this field and we shall continue to press for a further tightening of controls.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8 p.m.]

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before I call Amendment No. 20 I have to point out that there is a misprint in the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. The first line should read
"Page 5, line 7, at end insert—"
the words on the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted for behavioural studies designed to reveal information not for use in the treatment of disease in human beings.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that we started slightly on the wrong foot in the case of my Amendment No. 19, maybe I should stress that I have tabled this one simply as a probing amendment. I have no intention of pressing it, and I do not think an absolute prohibition of this kind should be in the Bill. However, it seems to me, as I said at Second Reading, that, again, this is an area about which there is considerable disquiet among the general public and among many scientists, including those involved in behavioural research. It is for that reason, to express that disquiet and to see what, if anything, will be in the Home Secretary's mind when he considers project licence applications for this kind of research, that I have tabled this amendment.
I hope that will reassure the Minister. I do not want to cause any trouble; I simply think that in relation to areas where there is a great deal of public concern it is worth using the parliamentary stages of this Bill, particularly the Committee stage, to see whether we can have any information about the way in which the Home Secretary will view applications for research of this kind.
I have said that there is some scientific concern about this kind of research, behavioural studies using animals, which is designed to throw light on human behaviour. I am not talking about studies which are designed to throw light on human disease or potential treatments for disease. I hope we can leave the pharmaceutical industry out of it, for this amendment at least, because the amendment does not cover that, and indeed deliberately excludes it.
I should like to quote a Fellow of the British Psychological Society and, indeed, a past president of the Psychology Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Alice Heim, who, in a speech in 1980, said about the kind of research which I am querying:
"But for me the big questions are: have we learned much that is new or beneficial from these thousands of experiments? And—whatever may have been learned—is the infliction of so much pain and terror warrantable? And, finally, is there any possible justification for duplicating and reduplicating this sort of experiment or variants of it, when the results are known and are readily ascertainable by means of films, books and articles in Journals?"
To give a particular example of the kind of experiment which I believe that speaker had in mind, I should like to cite a report in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1984 of experiments
412
carried out at the University of Sussex by G. Goodall to examine factors which affect learning when rats are punished. The punishment varied from a variety of shocks, 20 at a fairly low intensity to 2 at a higher intensity, in each case over a 5-minute period. As part of the experiment, the animals were starved to 80 per cent. of their normal body weight.
In a rather similar kind of experiment, but this time on rats to look at their aggression and to induce fighting, a study was carried out, this time reported in 1982 by Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour, a journal. This was about rats which were induced to take part in shock-induced fighting. This was something that had been done in the case of mice but had not apparently been done in the case of rats, and that was the reason for the experiment being carried out. It seems to me that there is a degree of duplication involved in those two studies.
I have deliberately taken only two. I have not gone into some which involve a great deal more suffering for the animals. I have deliberately tried to take two experiments which were reported very recently, one only last year. That is because one of the arguments that has been put to me personally has been that these kinds of experiments just do not happen any more. That may be the case. Normally, experiments are not reported until some years after they are conducted, and an experiment reported last year may have been conducted some years earlier. There is not normally any way of knowing that for certain.
Bearing in mind that I do not want to press the amendment, my questions to the noble Lord are these. Is this something about which the Home Secretary will be concerned when he looks at project licence applications? I do not expect the noble Lord to comment on the particular examples I have given, but are experiments of this kind ones which happen much less in 1985 than they did in 1980 or 1981? Have the numbers of experiments of this kind declined as dramatically in recent years as some people have told me? I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: I do not like to cross swords again with my noble friend but I have to take the amendment as it is drafted: It says:
"behavioural studies designed to reveal information not for use in the treatment of disease".
The real difficulty is in defining all those terms. If one takes, for example, growing old in our society, this has an effect on the brain, it is not a disease. I understand that scientists are gradually finding out that it is just simply that as we grow older certain fluids, or whatever they are, do not flow to the brain as they used to do and do not cause the brain to behave in a normal way. Such a person's symptoms are funny behaviour. There is no disease. It is simply the case of somebody getting older. I remember the same argument when we were talking about spectacles. I remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, remembers, that for 30 years I was trying to put over the point that the need for spectacles as one grows older is not a sign of having disease: it is just that one is normally and naturally ageing and that one should not be regarded as having a disease and referred to the monopoly of opticians for the supply of corrective lenses.

413
I take another example: stress. Stress is not a disease. It is again a behavioural matter—namely, that under certain circumstances people show symptoms of stress and scientists need to study what chemical reactions take place in the brain and produce the symptoms of stress and try to find a relief for that in human beings.
Both those examples are very obvious. They are not diseases; animal testing on both of those would be prohibited by this amendment. I beg my noble friend to realise that he may have some worthwhile ideas to pursue but it is almost impossible, in these borderline cases, to find words in the statute that cover a cast-iron situation. Just for those two examples alone, I should strongly oppose this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I must say that I very much share the views which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has expressed. He referred to stress and I have to say that the experience of many experts in that field to whom I have spoken over the last few weeks bears them out. I rather feel that this amendment would stand in the way of much very valuable scientific progress if it were accepted. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want in any sense to stand in the way of the advancement of scientific progress.
The other matter which slightly worries me is that he specifically prevents this kind of work being done unless it is for the treatment of disease in human beings. Also it slightly runs in the face of another amendment which he has down later on the Marshalled List, about the conditions in which animals are kept, and compares them with zoos. I shall not anticipate this argument but I feel to some extent that where one has to carry out behavioural studies to see whether animals are suited to the conditions in which they are kept, this does not exactly tie in with it.
However, more seriously than that, I have to tell him that of course the Home Secretary has asked the advisory committee looking at licences specifically to look at the whole area of psychological and behavioural research. It is a matter which, I understand, concerns a lot of people and it obviously concerns the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. My right honourable friend awaits with some interest the report which they will produce. I honestly believe that the words which he quoted and which involved so much "pain or terror", if I have the words right, is rather an exaggeration. I myself have seen behavioural studies carried out with animals which have extremely good foundations in science. If he talks to an expert who has carried out this sort of work he will understand the advantages that it would lead to. With that explanation and with his acknowledgment that it is only a probing amendment, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am very glad to hear that the advisory committee are looking into this. But, as I understood what the noble Lord said, the advisory committee have been looking into it for some time and are due to report to the Home Secretary in due course. He did not say when. I wondered if the advisory committee will be looking into the problem in the context of the regime which would be set up under this Bill where the Secretary of State will have to take into account the likely benefits which will accrue from the
414
research as against the suffering of the animals. If that is the case—the noble Lord is nodding—perhaps he could confirm that.
Lord Glenarthur: I can assure the noble Lord that that is the case.
Lord Melchett: That is very encouraging and I look forward to seeing what the advisory committee have to say about this.
Before I withdraw the amendment, I would quarrel with the noble Lord on one point. He suggested that the use of the word "terror" and so on was an exaggeration. A lot of these experiments are designed to terrorise the animal; they are designed to induce fear or aggression. There are experiments to look at the aggressiveness of rats where the test is how soon the rats will kill mice in a cage. It is hard to suggest that that is not inducing some terror in the mice at least. And there are experiments which involve electric shocks, deprivation, reducing body weight by 80 per cent. and so on. These are bound to involve a fair amount of terror and suffering. I should not have thought that that was arguable—but the noble Lord is looking unhappy about that.
Lord Glenarthur: I am unhappy because I think that the noble Lord really is exaggerating a little. Of course, any suggestion that the animals suffer to the extent of losing their body weight by perhaps 80 per cent. is something in which the inspectors would take a very keen interest. The noble Lord has not spelled out exactly what sort of work he is referring to, but I believe that he is introducing something of a red herring. That is the sort of interest which the inspectors are expressly there for the purpose of examining. I am sure that they will not let it go unnoticed.
Lord Melchett: We will not pursue this because I do not think that either of us are experts—certainly I myself am not. I had understood that the reduction of an animal's body weight by 80 per cent. was a fairly standard procedure in behavioural testing and research and that there was not anything particularly unusual about it. Certainly the induction of electric shock is there. With respect, I do not think t was exaggerating.
Lord Glenarthur: I agree that we should not prolong this but I am advised that the noble Lord is quite wrong. If I discover ultimately that the noble Lord in any sense is correct (which I simply do not believe is possible) then I shall stand to correct what I have said. But I honestly believe that it is something of an exaggeration and I do not think that he ought to be carried away by what he has read in some curious part of the world.
Lord Melchett: As I have said, we shall not prolong it. My understanding is different from the noble Lord's. We shall both have to take advice to see who is right. But I am grateful for the information he has given me about the advisory committee looking into this. As I said earlier, I look forward to seeing the report that they produce and the advice that they give the Home Secretary in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted for the purposes of testing on the eyes of animals (Draize Test) or for the purpose of ascertaining the lethal dose which kills 50 per cent. (or some other percentage) of the subject animals (L.D. 50 Test).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is about the Draize and LD. 50 Test. I take the point that this Bill is designed not to include specific references like this. Nevertheless, I bring this forward at the Committee stage not least so that it should go on record that it has been discussed, in the same way as my noble friend Lord Airedale did on a previous amendment. The Draize Test and the LD. 50 Test are tests which have occasioned a considerable amount of revulsion on the part of the general public. I myself feel very considerable revulsion about the whole basic idea of the LD. 50 Test.
In addition to this, these tests are sharply opposed by the whole of the welfare lobby, and I understand that they have very few supporters among serious scientists. However, they are beloved of bureaucrats and tend to be used to satisfy regulations, regulations which usually do not specify what sort of test has to be used, and therefore these ones will do as well as any.
They are used not only for the testing of drugs but also for household products, cosmetics, weedkillers and so on. I think there is little doubt that they should be phased out happily and modern and more humane toxicity testing which exists, and which I understand is available, should be used instead. If all this is so, and I think that most of it is certainly so, there is a strong case for writing the banning of these tests into the Bill. But even if that is rejected, and I think that it may well be, we should place on record that what this Bill is partly about is the ability to reject, and to continue to reject, this kind of testing.
The Earl of Halsbury: If the object of this debate is to place things on record, I must place on record that the Draize Test is obsolete. It is no longer used. It was invented in a hurry to investigate the allegation that a certain type of eyebrow black and eyelash black was sending women blind. It was. A very large number of women were saved from being blinded by blinding two rabbits. There was, of course, criticism of the test at the time. But the test is obsolete: it is no longer used. So why bring that up now?—as somebody said when the whale landed Jonah on the shores of Nineveh.
So far as beauty preparations are concerned, we are dealing with a spectrum—are we not on Amendment No. 23?
Noble Lords: No, No. 22.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am so sorry; I apologise.
Lord Melchett: I was very interested to hear the noble Earl say that the Draize eye irritancy test is no longer in use at all and is obsolete. It would be helpful to have that confirmed by the Government. If that is the case, it is new information to me. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and I disagreed about the extent to which the LD.50 Test
416
was used in the pharmaceutical industry. I have been told on a visit to pharmaceutical companies that the LD.50 Test was not used in research to develop new pharmaceutical products. I understand that it is used for safety testing and indeed may be a requirement for safety testing of products.
But in the research and development of new pharmaceutical products, as I understand it, the LD.50 test is not now needed.
It will be interesting to have that on the record, if that is the case, because there was some disagreement at Second Reading and, on looking at what was said, I can see that the noble Lord and I may have been talking at cross purposes; I am afraid not for the first time. I had meant to make it clear that my understanding was that the LD.50 test was not used in research and development of new pharmaceutical products whereas it may be a statutory or legal requirement in safety testing of a number of things. I regret that, and I hope that we can get rid of it as soon as possible. If the LD.50 test and the Draize eye test are both obsolete that would be a great step forward and it would be helpful to have both things officially on the record.
The Earl of Halsbury: There is no rule against speaking twice on the same amendment. I am so sorry that my eye passed down from No. 22 to No. 23, for which I again tender an apology to the Committee. Of course the LD.50 test is not needed in the case of cosmetics. You do not have to kill half a batch of mice by filling them up with cold cream, which is in any case a well-tested product. Statistically, it can be shown that the LD.50 test uses fewer animals than LD.25 or LD.75: that is just a piece of mathematics. So it is the most economic test you can do on animals, where requisite.
There are certain conditions where it is requisite and I must introduce your Lordships, perhaps unnecessarily, to the concept of the chemotherapeutic index, which is the ratio between the dose that cures and the dose that kills. In the case of carcinolytic drugs—those that poison cancer cells more readily than normal cells in the body—this chemotherapeutic index is very low. I am sure many of your Lordships must have heard of the fact that chemotherapy is a pretty miserable business for those who have to endure it—your skin goes wrong, your eyes fall out and so on. The difference of dosage between the dose that cures and the dose that kills is very small in the case of cancer chemotherapy. Therefore it is necessary to know this with very great accuracy. It is not necessary to know this in the case of cold cream or any of the pharmaceutical preparations that are used. Of course there are conditions where it is impossible to be quite sure which amendment we are debating—whether No. 22 or No. 23—and I shall come back on that later.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that really this question of using the LD.50 test on cosmetic products is just not on. One uses instead what is called a "limit" test: that is, you ask yourself the sensible question of how much cold cream taken from her mother's dressing table a child could possibly swallow in the case of one repast or orgy. If you express that as a percentage of the body weight and you feed that percentage of the body weight to a

417
mouse, that is what is called the limit test, and, if the mouse survives the limit test, you can assume that the child will survive her parent's cold cream.
That is the sort of way in which pharmaceutical products are tested. They are nearly all composites of very well-known substances, and there is very little that one needs to learn about them—always remembering that when, in response to legislation in Parliament, you test something for safety, you do it in the belief that the substance is safe. In probably 99 cases out of 100 it is, and the animal which is dosed by it suffers no ill effects at all. You do not make mice, voluntarily or involuntarily, swallow large doses of sulphuric acid, because you know that sulphuric acid is dangerous; it is poisonous and it will kill them. You do not ask them to swallow cyanide of potassium, nicotine or any of the well-known organic substances. You test things for safety in the belief that they are safe, and in 99 cases out of 100 that is precisely what they are. But the hundredth case that goes wrong can cause a tremendous amount of social disturbance when it is released into society. I would ask your Lordships to think of what happened over the thalidomide cases, for instance, where we were dealing with a completely unknown phenomenon. Parliament has legislated, saying that these things have to be done: and they who will the end must will the means. There is no more to it than that.
Lord Glenarthur: This amendment provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss issues which I realise have given rise to quite a measure of public concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, himself said. I must reassure him that the Government recognise that there is considerable public concern about the Draize eye irritancy test. I have to say also that much of that concern, regrettably, has been deliberately manufactured by extreme opponents of animal experiments, using emotive pictures at least some of which, if not all, have not stemmed from this country: and there have been wildly distorted claims and reports taken out of context.
The Draize eye test is used to test substances for eye irritancy, and that is an essential part of the safety testing of many products, including some medicines. Much initial screening work is carried out without the need to use live animals, using in vitro methods. Animals are still needed for the final stages of testing, but by then the most potentially irritant substances have usually been screened out. The test itself, as commonly carried out in the United Kingdom, frequently stops short of the end-points laid down in international regulations.
I hope it will reassure the noble Lord if I say that there is a very great deal of work going on on alternatives to the Draize test but, regrettably, so far no complete replacement for it has been found. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said he thought the test was not used at all. I am open to correction if his knowledge on this is greater than mine: I believe that the Draize eye test is certainly not much used according to the original protocol invented by Draize himself, but the modified Draize test is now used. I am sure he will agree that our aim must be to ensure that the test is used only where necessary and that the severe effects are eliminated or minimised.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so that I can clear this point up. It does not matter what name it goes by—call it the Draize test for reasons of continuity—but the modern way is to use an ophthalmic microscope directed at the cornea of the rabbit, put a very small quantity of the suspected substance on the cornea and watch the potential development of damage to the cornea of the rabbit. When the microscope shows that the cornea is being damaged, then the test is suspended.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sure the noble Earl is quite correct in that, but I understand—and it would be misleading if I were to say otherwise—that occasionally there is a requirement, with a very, very mild final solution of whatever it is, for it to be applied to the eye. But certainly it is nothing like the original Draize test to which the noble Earl referred.
As well as supporting international moves towards altering requirements for product safety, we are consulting the industries about the use of the Draize test in this country with a view to producing guidelines that will ensure that the best practice is adopted by all involved in the administration of the tests. I am quite sure that the Committee will welcome these moves.
I should now like to turn to the LD.50 evaluation. Toxicity testing remains essential if medicines and other products used daily in industry and in the home are to be safe. But obtaining formal LD.50 values—which provide a measure of acute toxicity by determining the dose which kills half the animals in a sample—is much less common than most people imagine. Formal LD.50s are seldom, if ever, used in the production of pharmaceuticals, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that so far as we know it is true that LD.50 values are not sought in pharmaceutical research. Increasingly they are being replaced by "limit" tests, involving the comprehensive observation of toxic effects in a very small number of animals or, alternatively, an estimate of the minimum lethal dose. That, too, would probably also be prohibited if the noble Lord's amendment were to be taken literally, although I recognise that that is a finer drafting point.
As I mentioned in the debate on Second Reading, there is still some need for LD.50 values. They are essential for some purposes: for example, as one of your Lordships explained, the testing of some powerful anti-cancer drugs whose therapeutic dose is very close to the lethal dose and, above all, in the standardisation and testing of essential vaccines. What we can and shall do is to encourage international regulatory bodies to continue their re-examination of the need for LD.50 values and we shall ensure through the system of project licensing that alternative methods of toxicity testing are used wherever possible. Here the Government welcome the special report of the British Toxicology Society's working party published last year, which explored a number of measures further to reduce severe toxicity tests using animals. We are awaiting with great interest the outcome of the field trials, which the British Toxicology Society has set up following the report, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the society for its patient and expert work in this very sensitive and important area.

419
I think that the noble Lord's amendment has given us a chance to debate a matter of concern. I hope that it has also been able to reassure him that these things are being reduced wherever possible, and that certainly the Government, among many others, take these matters extremely seriously and realise the concern which many people feel. I trust that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This debate has given an opportunity for us to get some important information, particularly on the Draize test. I certainly am considerably the wiser for that. On the LD.50 test, I still have a basic philosophical objection to that kind of testing, but I very much welcome the Government's determination to go on reviewing the situation with the intention of reducing it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted for the testing of beauty preparations or weapons.").
The noble Lord said: I intend to withdraw this amendment. I certainly do not intend to take it to a vote, not least because of the fact that the second part of it, the weapons part, we have already discussed. But I shall take the opportunity, this amendment being on the Marshalled List at the Committee stage, to raise the subject of the testing of beauty preparations.
I know that cosmetic and beauty preparations are used for a number of different things. Often in these debates we are told—I am sure quite rightly—that a lot of them are used purely for very worthwhile purposes, such as helping those who are disfigured. I do not really think that that goes to the heart of what this amendment is about because although cosmetic preparations are undoubtedly used for that purpose, not a great proportion of them are and I suspect that those that are are those whose components are already known. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said on a previous amendment about the whole of this area, a lot of the products are composites of very well-known substances, anyway.
But I think there is a moral revulsion at the idea of making animals suffer in order to test any large quantity of products which are only for man's vanity or are superfluous to our real needs. I certainly have such a revulsion. On this matter, I go along with the theology of the late C. S. Lewis, who was in so many ways not the kind of person to take a soft line on this aspect, but who found himself morally revolted by the using of animals for human beings for any purposes which were not really essential for human beings. Certainly, he would have found himself revolted about using animals for purposes of luxury which on the whole—give or take the odd exception—is what cosmetics are about. There is a real point at issue here—I think the public as a whole realise that there is a real point at issue here—and this is a very serious amendment, even though at this moment it is not particularly well drafted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: Once more for the record I ask this Committee, what is beauty? I am not asking what Helen of Troy looked like. I ask your Lordships to take a quite ordinary young woman, no different from her neighbours, and push her face through a windscreen in a motorcar accident, so that she has one long slashed scar from her right eyebrow down to her left jaw, every inch of it scar tissue. Scar tissue has an enhanced tumorogenic capacity. It is more likely to develop into a tumour than normal flesh. Should she not have assurance that any medium she uses to disguise that disfigurement has been carefully tested to make sure that it will not exercise a tumorogenic property upon that scar? There is an old principle that the punishment should not exceed the crime. In the case of a woman who is punished with cancer for the crime of vanity, if it is a crime, are we not requiring that the punishment does exceed the crime and is the sacrifice of an animal such a very serious matter?
We must see these matters in perspective. It does not matter how many million rats you poison in the sewers provided that you do not contravene the Act covering cruel poisons, but you must not poison one in a laboratory without a licence. Does this general attitude really make sense? My sympathies are with that woman—and there are many of them—who has to go through life disfigured possibly because of somebody else's carelessness in, through having had too much to drink, driving his car into her car.
I believe that our compassion should be turned in that direction, remembering always that in these matters we are dealing with situational ethics. We wake up into a situation which we never created, but for one mysterious reason or another responsibility for dealing with it is assigned to us. In these circumstances, the kind of superficial moral philosophies based on hedonism or utilitarianism are not very much help.
I realise the excellence of all the motives that inspired the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. From the moral point of view, he has my admiration. But from the common sense point of view, I think that this kind of amendment is only likely to make a bad situation worse and therefore I oppose it.
Lord Auckland: I think that the Committee will have followed with much interest the very pertinent words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but I wonder whether we are in danger of getting words mixed up. Is there a difference between beauty and cosmetics? My understanding is that tests for cosmetics also include tests on things like toothpaste and shampoo; and, after all, dental caries, particularly among young people, is still a very serious complaint and so is alopecia.
There are also the problems of skin diseases, such as impetigo and psoriasis, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading. Therefore, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could tell the Committee whether under this amendment we would be covering only the literally beautifying things, such as lipstick, Chanel No. 5, and so on, which I do not think are as vital as the shampoos and other necessities. Perhaps skin complaints which still cause distress, particularly to the female sex, can be decimated by these tests, whether or not we all like them, and I am quite sure that these and other tests are not desired if alternative means can be found.
Lord Northfield: I have some sympathy with this amendment. I was relieved when the noble Lord defined it as "beauty preparations" rather than as "cosmetics" because cosmetics cover some important things, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, such as soap, toothpaste and shampoo. I feel that the noble Lord is firing at the wrong target. I am no expert but I helped the cosmetics industry to get its case heard in Brussels, as the noble Lord will be glad to hear, to prevent the necessity for the retesting of hundreds of their products. At last I think we have reached agreement in Brussels so that many of them do not need to be retested. Although I have no brief for the industry, I still think that we should be looking at what is in the EC Directive of 1978. This is the real problem.
The 1978 EC Directive provides that products must not be liable to cause damage to human health when they are applied under conditions of normal use. On the basis of that, and with a Committee in Brussels on cosmetology, they have set up a series of guidelines which specify the situations in which animal studies are required in assessing the safety of the ingredients and the finished products. The place to fight about this is in Brussels rather than here. I suspect that the British cosmetics industry will be rather relieved if we can get Brussels or the Community to delete a good deal more of the animal testing that takes place under that EC Directive.
Nevertheless, we have to be careful because even if we got that directive right and we began to outlaw a certain amount of animal testing even further than has been done already, we would still be left with the Health and Safety at Work Act which would put a liability on the producers to be sure that substances are safe and without risk to health when properly used. In many cases if they proved not to be and they had not been adequately tested one could find that very innocent as well as terribly guilty producers of cosmetics could be sued for very large sums. We are between the devil and the deep on this one. I hope that the Minister will say that he agrees with me that the way forward is to continue our discussions in Brussels and hopefully and gradually to reduce the number of animal tests required under the 1978 Directive.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may say a brief word in response to something that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said. At various stages today we have been in danger of rehearsing the old arguments which the noble Earl knows well have been gone over many times before with a reiteration of debating points rather than a discussion of the amendments which have been put on the Marshalled List. It has happened to me, and I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because it seems to have happened to his amendment. As I read it the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has taken some trouble to avoid the very argument which the noble Earl spent his speech developing: that there are some uses for what might be called cosmetics where there is a genuine medical or psychological need for the product to be used. He gave the example of a person with a scar across his face. That surely is not what the amendment is aimed at or where the real argument lies.
The Earl of Halsbury: I asked, what is beauty? Will the noble Lord give me an answer?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl asked the question: "What is beauty?" He then went on to develop the argument about scar tissue—somebody with a serious injury which needed some covering up and where there was a serious medical danger of a cancer developing. The noble Earl may have asked the question: "What is beauty?" but he went on to talk about a medical and clinical problem. The answer to the noble Earl's point is that there are many companies now which sell beauty products and which say quite openly that the products have not been involved in any animal testing in their development or safety testing, and that that is seen as a selling point. The argument put by those who oppose any remaining tests that are done is that if some companies can do this for beauty preparations, why should not all of them do so? Although the noble Earl may have asked an interesting question, I do not think, with respect, that he actually addressed himself to the question which the amendment itself raises.
Lord Todd: I should like to make one point on this matter. The real problem of this amendment is that there is a fantastic difficulty in trying to define what we mean by a beauty preparation. I feel that we should stick to the general idea of the Bill and leave it to the Home Secretary with the advice of his advisory committee to decide whether or not in a particular case action is necessary. After all, what is a beauty preparation? What do you say to a young girl who is suffering rather badly from acne and wants to put something on her face? Is that a beauty preparation, or what is it? One is up against a problem of definition here. We should always remember that when we are dealing with a Bill of this nature, the more we attempt to specify precisely what shall be done and what shall not be done the more unworkable we will make the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the Committee will allow a layman to venture to express an opinion. I note that the noble Lord is not pressing the last part of his amendment. He says that he is not concerned with weapons, and that that has already been discussed—but in fact it has not. Amendment No. 18 referred to the study of wounds inflicted by weapons. I had understood that the noble Lord was concerned with measuring the destructive powers of weapons. Be that as it may, if he had in fact pressed the latter part of the amendment I think he would have found a great deal of support for it because it is difficult to justify causing harm to an animal in order to measure the destructive power of weapons.
I turn now to the first part of the amendment which bans the testing of beauty preparations. We are on more delicate ground here. I cannot say to any standard that beauty preparations generally can be said to be essential. On the other hand, they can be said to relate to the wellbeing of an individual. Is a sense of wellbeing sufficient justification for the experimentation? It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, that such a delicate matter should be left to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether

423
experiments for the testing of beauty preparations is something that could be referred to the Animals Protection Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has explained very carefully the particular reasons why he considers it necessary to enact and express prohibition on the use of animals for beauty. He said he was not going to pursue the question of weapons, but then the point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord on this matter quite succinctly. It has been emphasised many times by the Government that in the United Kingdom animals are not used in work to improve weapons' or ammunition performance. This was a point I raised earlier in answer to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I do not think there is anything I can add to it. It simply does not happen.
The testing of cosmetic products, especially those which are considered vanity products, is of course a subject of frequent criticism. The Government accept that that deserves the most careful consideration as the debate has indicated it ought to. It is a question to which we have given a great deal of attention. But even if it were possible to isolate those products associated exclusively with beautification and which have no other conceivable benefit, we do not consider that an outright ban would be appropriate. It may help if I try to put the issue in some sort of perspective. The majority of cosmetics tests are, as my noble friend Lord Auckland described, concerned with toothpastes, soaps and other products, which most people would regard as essential to their daily health and welfare. Those products all have to be tested for safety, and quite properly so, to conform with stringent legal requirements. Those tests are relatively very few in number, and there is constant pressure to reduce them. The majority of procedures are done to test the irritancy of the finished products. Since they are by their very nature bland substances, their effects on the animals used really are minimal.
There were only 17,500 animals used in all cosmetics testing last year, out of a total of 3·5 million, and only a small proportion could be said to concern what have been described as beauty products. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has advanced a case for isolating those products and banning them on the ground that they are not essential. But how is it to be determined what is essential and what is not? Some people would say that household products, industrial chemicals and many medicines were not essential. It seems to us illogical, as well as insidious, to single out certain cosmetics from all the other products which are tested on animals. A statutory prohibition would also raise formidable problems of definition. To take two examples, is a shampoo a beauty preparation or is it an aid to personal hygiene? Perhaps it is both. And is the blushing agent used to disguise a permanent facial scar that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Todd, described a beauty preparation or something essential to the psychological wellbeing of the unfortunate person who must use it?
I cannot help in the discussion about trying to define what is beauty. We all know that it lies in the eye of the
424
beholder, but I would add that it lies also in giving self-confidence to she who seeks its use. I cannot put that point more ably than has already been done by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
At another level, how would the Secretary of State determine an application to test a new compound, knowing that it was likely to form the basis of a beauty preparation but that it might equally be put to other uses? We really cannot prejudge the issues in that way. To do so in respect of beauty preparations, weapons even, or any other particular type of research or testing would be inimical to the principle upon which the Bill is founded. The scheme of the Bill is that any research that satisfies one of the permissible purposes listed in Clause 5(3) should be scrutinised on its merits in each individual case. The system of project licensing will provide a far more detailed and discriminating method of amendment than has been possible until now.
The benefits of every programme of work will have to be carefully considered and weighed against the effects on animals. This will provide a fairer, more rigorous and more effective method of control than seeking to identify undesirable kinds of research or types of test and banning or restricting them in advance. To attempt to do that would be disastrous, both for the essential flexibility of the legislation, which was so adequately described earlier, and for the confidence our researchers and scientists have placed in it.
As I have said we believe that the use of animals in the essential safety testing of cosmetics products, including some beauty preparations, continues to be justified. We are committed to applying in those sensitive areas the most rigorous scrutiny. Project licensing will be the key to that. As an additional measure, the Animal Procedures Committee will be asked to examine all applications for project licences for work on cosmetics. I think that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. By that means we shall be able to pay particular attention to that work and the scope for further reducing the use of animals and the severity of procedures.
It is only right to add that a prohibition on cosmetics testing, or any part of it, would result in the testing being transferred abroad, where controls are laxer and animals liable to suffer more. I cannot help but feel that that would diminish the United Kingdom's influence on the international moves that are being made to reduce and replace the use of animals in that kind of work.
I have said that the Government recognise public concern on this matter; of course we do. We take it very seriously. We shall continue to look for ways of improving the situation. But a prohibition in the Bill on isolated areas of research is not the way to do it. I hope that despite the noble Lord's understandable concern, he will see the force of the argument, realise that we are doing what we can to improve matters, both here and internationally, and accept that we will, through project licences, scrutinise most rigorously the work that is to be done. I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured to be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I want to echo what was said a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord

425
Todd. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my noble friend Lord Melchett are both pressing against the grain of this Bill. We are spending a lot of time on matters that are not in the Bill and that were not intended to be in the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, the Second Reading of this Bill implied acceptance of the purpose and structure of this Bill, which differs from all previous attempts. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, are pursuing the well-trodden path of reform in animal welfare that has wrecked all Private Members' Bills for the past 50 years.
One does not get anywhere in that way, for the simple reason that there are difficulties in the path of achieving the absolute ban, of achieving the specific remedy that is sought by animal welfare people but which they never secure. This debate is echoing the propaganda of animal welfare societies of the past 50 years, and it has got them nowhere. That is simply because they are absolutists and it is impossible to get an absolute ban inscribed in the statute.
Members seem to think that the only way to achieve something is to have it written into the statute law, as if there were no other way of achieving progress than by having it written into the statute law. The worship of the law in this country is one of the astonishing elements in the British character. There is probably more evasion of the law than people realise. With multi-nationals, if you have something stopped in London at the present time, it simply starts in Brussels, and so on. I beg noble Lords to look at what the Bill is there to do. The new Animal Procedures Committee is there to review all these matters intensely and it is about to do so.
We are not amending this Bill now; we are not looking at its structure. Members are trying to get provisions put into this Bill that are not intended to be there. The progress that will be made will be by careful examination of particular areas of difficulty and public concern. Let us try this new way. Do not let us go on battering at the door over beauty preparations, weapons, LD.50, and the Draize Test. I have felt very strongly about them in my time but now they are old hat. The area of investigation into the use of animals is increasing and widening the whole time, but still we hear the old arguments that are stuck in the minds and emotions of people from the past. I appeal for a fresh approach to this matter.
In this Chamber of all chambers, surely we must realise that those who have been active in this movement for years and years are responding to the promptings of animal welfare societies who cannot see beyond getting a taboo inserted into the Act—but that is just old-fashioned stuff. That is why we have devised this new approach. It is the foundation of the future. It is the opportunity of tomorrow. Those who I think will be engaged in it will see greater rewards with this method than any previously tried.
I have laboured long in trying to make progress, and here we are. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are taking time, which is short on this Bill, in order to revive the controversies and the propaganda of the past. Let us look forward in the new concept, and look at the Bill to see whether it will achieve its purpose and whether it is constructed to
426
attain the reforms that we desire. We shall then make progress.
It is breaking my heart the way we are going on, just frittering away the time and battering at closed doors. It is important that those doors should be opened but they can be opened the intelligent way—not the propaganda way and not the emotional way. There are difficulties in the way of everything raised that we want to forbid in this Bill, but the difficulties can be overcome by patient examination, by adapting methods to new requirements, and by a change in the whole outlook of public opinion. Let us get on with the Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to take up a lot of time because, as my noble friend said, time is short, although he took up some considerable time himself. I must say, however, that I very strongly objected to two remarks that he made. First, any amendments that appear in my name on the Marshalled List were tabled by me on my own behalf, as is the custom in this House. None was tabled on behalf of any other interests. If I may say so to my noble friend, I resent the suggestion that the amendments might be other than in my own name.
Secondly, I have to tell my noble friend that I was not aware that there was any guillotine proceedure in this House or that we are in an enormous hurry to get this Bill through. It is an important Bill. It is the first time that we have legislated on this issue, as the noble Lord knows very well, for over 100 years. It would be a grave mistake by this House or another place to try to deal with the Bill in a hurry. This is the first time we have had a chance to look at the Bill in detail and discuss the points that it raises. I hope that the House will take time in doing so and will make sure that the Bill is right. As the noble Lord said, we are passing this Bill in the hope that it will remain on the statute book for a long time.
Finally, I do not know whether my noble friend heard what I said in introducing my two amendments to this clause, but I made it perfectly clear that I respected the way that the Bill has been drafted and that I did not want to interfere with that. However, I said that I thought it important to have an opportunity to discuss these issues; indeed I think that some interesting and important points have come from these discussions, even if my noble friend does not agree.
I return to the amendment. I have one question to ask the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. In a Question which he answered on Wednesday, 4th December concerning statistics on Draize eye tests and LD.50 tests he kindly said that when the statistical returns are revised to take account of the proposed legislation—that is, this Bill—the revised return would identify those two tests separately: the LD.50 test and Draize eye test. That is very welcome information.
I want to put this point to the noble Lord, although I do not expect an answer this evening. Perhaps he will consider it. When the statistical return is revised it might be possible to identify separately those cosmetic products which are used, as it were, for cleansing purposes—shampoos, soaps, toothpaste, and so

427
on—which he says take up the bulk of the products in the statistic he gave us, and beauty preparations. I accept it will be difficult to separate beauty preparations which are purely make-up and those which have some clinical or other use. Nevertheless, it might be possible to refine the statistics in this area into more detail and help persuade people that change of the sort that the noble Lord said was taking place is taking place. I put that point for the noble Lord to consider.
Lord Glenarthur: I note the noble Lord's wish that the products should be differentiated in that way. I simply do not know whether it is possible. Frankly, I doubt it because I suspect that it will put an enormous burden on the administration of those returns and also, presumably, on the scientific bodies and research organisations that provide them. I may be wrong, but I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion, without any commitment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I think that many of your Lordships, even those not present tonight, will read in Hansard with great interest tomorrow the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to the doctrine of brevity in your Lordships' House.
I do not accept the doctrine which he put forward that your Lordships should only put forward amendments which fit in to the Bill as he visualises it, or as the Government visualise it. I am putting forward amendments—there are not many of them; I have reached the end of this batch and there are not many afterwards—which I think raise important points of principle. It is important that they should be aired and seen to be aired on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I do not do it on behalf of anyone, although I understand that the RSPCA agrees with a number of the amendments which I have tabled. I am emphatically not wasting time, as a number of your Lordships with whom I have discussed the timetabling of progress will know, and if anyone catches me wasting time in the sense of speaking for too long in making a particular point I will be grateful if he will tell me—not now, but later. However, I think I am not guilty.
It is difficult to come back to the points raised. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for pointing out the error I made about not raising the subject of weapons. I am delighted that the Minister took advantage of the noble Lord mentioning that to produce that assurance which is doubly welcome.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the issue of terminology, as did other noble Lords, concerning beauty products and cosmetics. The discussions show that whatever you do you cannot get it right and perhaps the answer to that—and perhaps the answer that would be put forward—is that therefore you should not try to get it right because it is an impossible task. I do not think that it is as simple as that. I slightly challenge the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. If I had a foolproof definition I suspect he would still have been against me. With him, I am in favour of situation ethics. I think that as a last resort there is no alternative but situation ethics and I am with him on that.
However, I think he raised it in a case where it was not necessarily relevant. I did not think that the
428
argument which we had previously about the lady with the scar on her face is really a valid one. Are people trying to say that there are not beauty products and cosmetic products which have already been thoroughly tested, either on animals or not, which would perfectly well deal with any case like that? I am absolutely certain that there are. I think that this point is a red herring.
I think the point that we need to carry the debate into Brussels is a very important one, and I think that the debates which we have here in this way are valuable in preparing the ground for it.
There comes a moment when mankind should not go on expanding commerce just because there might be a marginal demand for something or because there might be a marginal profit from it, and where we say that it is not worthwhile inflicting pain and death on animals for such a purpose. Whatever other noble Lords may think, I feel that this debate was useful if only for the reassurance that we have from the Minister, which was spelled out in a very forthright way and which is now in Hansard. I think this debate was worthwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted if a feasible alternative method not using live animals is available.").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships' Committee will be very relieved to hear that this is the last of this particular batch of amendments. This particular point is an important one. Some provision for it was made in the White Paper, but it has been omitted from the Bill. The White Paper stated in paragraph 38:
"An application for a personal licence will have to be supported by a senior licensee with personal knowledge of the applicant … This sponsor will be asked to express his opinion as to whether:

(a) the project is likely to achieve the declared purpose;

(b) any alternative non-sentient method would satisfactorily and reliably achieve the purpose;

(c) the type of animals which it is proposed to use is appropriate.".

That has not come into the Bill, or really, so far as I can see, into the code of practice. However, I still think it is a very important principle that if there is a feasible alternative method not using live animals it should be used. I think that this is an ethical demand which we can only reject for the best of all possible reasons, and I do not yet know what they are. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: I should like quickly to say to my noble friend that it is in the guidelines on page 21, paragraph (b):
"whether thorough consideration has been given to the use of alternative methods and the use of live animals as the only feasible means of achieving the purpose.".
That satisfies me.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should like to make a very brief intervention. Alternative methods are cheaper. Scientists are perpetually hard up. No one wants to use animals if there is an alternative method, so the economics of the entire process are on the side of the

429
animal. That is the only point I want to make. I believe that this particular amendment is unnecessary because of the economics of the process.
Lord Auckland: I believe that Clause 5(5) largely meets the purport of this amendment. In any case it is my understanding that fewer animals are being used now than were used, say, 10 years ago. I should have thought that, leaving aside the guidelines, Clause 5(5), which certainly covers cats, dogs and primates, which are the most emotive concern of this Bill and quite rightly so, would solve the problem.
Lord Glenarthur: I rather gathered from the nod that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, gave to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, when he mentioned that it really was covered in the guidelines, that I need not be particularly long in answering his point. I can simply say that the question of whether an alternative method of research is feasible or whether a feasible method is available in any given circumstance is really highly subjective. It is not something that the project licence applicant, the inspector, the Secretary of State or anyone else can know for certain. The effect of the amendment would be to make the validity of a project licence dependent upon whether any feasible alternative method of research was available at the time the authority was granted, which is something which cannot be determined in any clear-cut way.
What are the other factors to be considered in determining applications? The noble Lord will know that the major ones are listed in paragraphs 49 to 58 of the draft guidance notes. The whole structure of the Bill is that all the details of what the Secretary of State will take into account are not in the Bill itself. We shall be bound to have got some of it wrong, no doubt, but it would be irremediably wrong without further primary legislation, and frankly that would be a fairly catastrophic result. So I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank noble Lords. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was quite right. I think that Clause 5(5) does not cover the point. I should still prefer the provision to be in the body of the Bill, but I take the Minister's point and understand his position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Scientific procedure establishments]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 35, after ("below") insert ("a person or").
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment related to Amendment No. 32, at the bottom of the page.
Amendment No. 32: Page 5, line 43, at end insert—
("and the same person may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be specified under both paragraphs of this subsection.").
Clause 6 deals with the conditions under which establishments for scientific procedures shall receive a
430
certificate of approval. Two conditions required to be fulfilled are the appointment of:
"a person to be responsible for the day-to-day care of the protected animals",
and,
"a veterinary surgeon or other suitably qualified person to provide advice on their health and welfare".
The Secretary of State has received representations that in some circumstances the same person may act in both capacities. That applies particularly to establishments which may ask for a certificate where there is a resident veterinary surgeon. It may be convenient, though only with the permission of the Secretary of State, for one person to fulfil both responsibilities, and a certificate may be obtained on that basis. That is what the combination of the two amendments would enable.
Instead of the word "persons", which contemplates two in every case, the amendment would substitute "a person or persons" so that it would cover establishments where the Secretary of State agrees that one person may carry out those responsibilities. I beg to move Amendment No. 26, which will lead in due course to Amendment No. 32.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: I believe that Amendment No. 26 is related not only to Amendment No. 32 but to Amendments Nos. 33, 36, 40 and 41.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, but I thought that that was too much to ask the Committee to swallow at once, and it is possible to separate this item from the others. With the permission of the Committee, if it will agree to this small change of "person or persons", the main issue can come later in its proper place.
Viscount Davidson: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. At least the Committee knows that that is the intention. In the circumstances, I think that it will be best if I speak at a later stage on this group of amendments. But I am quite happy with this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) A certificate shall not be issued under this section in respect of any establishment keeping wild animals (as defined in section 21 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981) for experimental or other scientific purposes unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the establishment will meet the standards with respect to the management of wild animals in captivity specified by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if with this amendment we discuss Amendment No. 37, which covers exactly the same point.
Amendment No. 37: Clause 7, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) A certificate shall not be issued under this section in respect of any breeding or supplying establishment breeding or supplying wild animals (as defined in section 21 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the establishment will meet the standards with respect to the management of wild animals in captivity specified by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981".).
Amendment No. 28 would establish a requirement that wild animals as defined in the Zoo Licensing Act—and that is those animals which are not commonly domesticated in the United Kingdom—are kept in the sort of conditions laid down by the Secretary of State under the Act. Amendment No. 28 would apply the requirement to scientific procedure establishments and Amendment No. 37 would place the same requirement on breeding and supplying establishments.
I appreciate that there are a number of differences between zoos, which display animals for the public to visit, and establishments where animals are kept and bred for experiments in laboratories or establishments where they are kept for such experiments. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it would be useful either in the Bill or in the guidelines for the Secretary of State to be required by Parliament to address his mind more explicitly than is the case now to the conditions in which wild animals are kept.
I have a different amendment on the keeping of domestic animals. I suggest that it might be easier to take that amendment separately unless the noble Lord would like to cover all three together. The other is Amendment No. 38. At the moment, however, if no one wants to suggest otherwise, I shall stick with Amendments Nos. 28 and 37.
The requirement under these amendments would be that standards already drawn up by the Government and which are in the process of being applied by the Government to zoos would be applied also to establishments licensed under the Bill. I said in my Second Reading speech that one of the possibly neglected areas—I hope that my noble friend Lord Houghton will forgive me raising the matter in these circumstances—is the conditions under which laboratory animals, whether in establishments for research or breeding establishments, are kept. Animals used for breeding purposes may spend all their lives in a breeding establishment. Many laboratory animals in scientific procedure establishments will be there for some considerable time.
Some of these animals, particularly primates, but also others, will be animals that are now known to have highly developed sensibilities. They are social animals. They live normally in social groupings. They form close attachments to their parents, their brothers and sisters and their children in the same way that human beings do. Studies in the wild show that these animals suffer great grief if they lose an animal related to them, and so on.
One of the reasons why Parliament agreed to pass the Zoo Licensing Act in 1981 was the increase in our knowledge about the requirements for keeping animals in captivity in ways that did not cause them severe psychological stress. I do not believe that this is an issue that has been widely discussed when it comes to keeping in captivity wild animals that will be used for laboratory purposes. I think it should be. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that, even if this amendment is not acceptable and the standards laid down under the Zoo Licensing Act pose problems, there is nevertheless a requirement for more detailed guidelines on how wild animals should be kept in captivity in premises licensed under this Bill than is
432
currently envisaged either in the Bill or in the guidelines. I beg to move.
Lord Auckland: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, certainly deserves study. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can tell the Committee how many of these animals are wild animals as defined in the amendment, as opposed to those which are bred and kept in this country. I assume that it is mainly monkeys that are referred to. I visited an establishment recently where monkeys are bred and kept for the purpose of research, as I mentioned on Second Reading. With two honourable friends from the other place, I visited the cages where these animals are kept. I can only say to the Committee that the standards of hygiene and comfort were very high indeed.
What we are really up against here is the obvious need for more animals used in these experiments to be bred in this country rather than being imported from South America and elsewhere. It would help if the Minister could give some information, if not now, at a later stage, as to how many of these animals are bred in this country and how many are imported. This is an important aspect bearing on this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: It is a little difficult to comment in any depth on the merits of this amendment. Quite honestly, in the time available I have not been able to study the standards laid down by the Secretary of State for the Environment for the management of animals in zoos for reasons of which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is aware. My guess—and that of my advisers—is that they are not 100 per cent. apt for wild animals in laboratories. I do not see any particular reason why they should be. However, what I shall do is to examine a copy of the standards to see whether they have anything to teach us about how to keep wild animals in laboratories. I hope that at least that will be an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
What I can tell him, which corresponds with my noble friend Lord Auckland, is that I have been enormously impressed by the high standards in which all animals are kept in laboratories. Certainly the laboratories which I have visited and the stories that I have heard from those who have visited others—of which my noble friend has given an example just now—bears that out. I find them to be thoroughly happy and healthy. I think that the noble Lord would be aware that all those who look after animals in these circumstances are animal lovers in the same way that we all are.
My noble friend Lord Auckland has asked me how many are wild animals. I cannot give him an answer immediately without scrutinising a table very carefully; but I shall certainly let him know.
With the undertaking to examine the statute to which the noble Lord refers I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: Yes. I said in introducing the amendment—although I may not have made it clear—that the Zoo Licensing Act applies to all that it defines as "wild". I have not looked up the exact definition but the words are to the effect that it applies to all animals not commonly domesticated in the

433
United Kingdom. That is regardless of their source of origin, so that that would apply to monkeys, lions, tigers or elephants for the purposes of the Zoo Licensing Act which are bred in England, just as it applies to those which are imported into the country.
Lord Glenarthur: May I make one further point which relates to the point that the noble Lord is making? Animals in zoos are there for a different purpose. They are there for display. They are there to demonstrate their lives, their activities, to people who come to watch them. That is not the case with animals which are kept for laboratory purposes. Laboratories have similar facilities but they are not designed in the same way and they are not for the same purpose. That does not mean to say that the animals concerned are not perfectly happy.
Lord Melchett: I do not wish to get into a long argument with the noble Lord but I would query very strongly the use of the word "happy" in these circumstances, on a number of bases. However, I shall not go into that. The purposes for which animals are kept in zoos are not only for the enjoyment of the public. Indeed, those who run zoos make a very strong case for saying that the primary purpose is educational; and a secondary very important purpose is research. Zoos therefore are designed by those who support them for those purposes primarily; and I think that it is possible to see some parallels at least with the justification for having animals in laboratories or breeding animals for laboratory use.
My own feeling would be that for whatever the purpose they are there for does not make much difference to the animal itself for no other reason than that the animal will not be conscious of that purpose. Therefore these conditions are deemed to be required in order to ensure that animals do not suffer deprivation or discomfort or other things. That is the basis on which the standards are laid down under the Zoo Licensing Act. They are not laid down to ensure that the animals are properly displayed, or that they give pleasure to the visitors. They are laid down for the purposes of reducing suffering and deprivation to the animals kept in zoos. I think that exactly the same standards should be applied to animals kept for the purposes of this Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this. I shall be interested to know what conclusion he comes to. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No 29:
Page 5, line 39, after ("responsible") insert ("at all times for and skilled in").
The noble Lord said: it might be convenient to take with this amendment Amendments Nos. 31 and 39.
Amendment No. 31: Page 5, line 43, after ("to") insert ("be available at all times to").
Amendment No. 39: Clause 7, page 7, line 1, at end insert ("available at all times").
Amendment No. 39 is in my name and amends Clause 7 in the same way as Amendment No. 31 amends Clause 6. The purpose of these amendments is simply
434
to ensure that those responsible for the animals are not only responsible but are available at all times and have the required skills to look after the animals for which they are responsible. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: This is an important amendment. Speaking for the laymen—and both I and my noble friend are laymen—the way in which animals are treated and looked after is a very important aspect. There are a great many laymen. We have talked about the general public and we must remember that they are an enormously vital part of our discussions this evening. Therefore, the thought that animals which are undergoing experiments may not be under constant surveillance by people who are fully skilled and fully available to do so, is very worrying. This is an important amendment. It is common sense and everybody should relate to it. I hope that the Minister will look upon it very favourably.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have tabled an amendment which is substantially the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. As the noble Baroness has said, this is an extremely important point. Many of these animals may be going through a procedure. It may be that the situation covered in Clause 15 will arise and that their lives will have to be terminated. As I understand it, it is fairly common for some of these laboratories not to carry out any observation between Friday and Monday. That is not a satisfactory situation. There is no reference to this particular subject in the guidelines. I think that we must insist on this provision. However, I am not quite certain to what extent it is covered by the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is about to move. It may be that the noble Lord will think that the matter is adequately covered. If so, I shall not press the matter any further. However, I should like to be certain that the principle enunciated by this amendment is fully operative and obligatory.
Lord Auckland: It is my understanding that any major pharmaceutical company operates a 24-hour service around the clock, including Christmas Day and at holiday time, and that there is normally either a duty veterinary officer or somebody who is an acknowledged expert on animal welfare available at all times. We are, of course, talking about registered pharmaceutical companies. I should be very surprised—and of course it will be for my noble friend the Minister to confirm this—if there were not some qualified person available day and night to deal with these matters. It is important to raise this point; but as one who has visited a number of pharmaceutical companies and who has served on hospital committees, and so on, I should be very surprised if what I have said were not the case.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly understand and share the concern of those who have spoken in support of the amendment that animals used in experimental work are properly cared for at all times. It is because of our concern that we have included in the Bill the requirement that all designated scientific procedure establishments and all designated breeding or supplying establishments should have a specific named person

435
responsible for the day-to-day care of animals at the establishment. That person will not of course be on duty 24-hours a day, but he will have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that proper arrangements exist for the care of animals at all times. His responsibility covers the whole period—that is, 24 hours of each and every day that he occupies the position—and substitution of "day and night" in the place of the words "day-to-day" really alters nothing in that respect.
I know that there is concern to ensure that in every case animals are properly supervised by trained staff throughout the whole of every day. However, I do not believe that the concern is soundly based. Animals need sleep; they need periods of undisturbed quiet. I am sure that your Lordships can appreciate that regular scrutiny at night—which to be effective would necessitate switching on lights—would be extremely disruptive. Anecdotes arise from time to time, and I honestly do not think that my dog, which I do not monitor all night every night, would very much appreciate it if I turned on a light and woke her up.
On the other hand, in the case of animals which are suffering pain or distress, or which could be outside normal hours because they have undergone a procedure, additional supervision may be necessary perhaps because they are recovering from an operation. That is provided for, and I hope that covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. That is the sort of care for animals which all of us normally have when we are looking after an animal that is recovering from some sort of procedure. My noble friend Lord Selkirk was concerned about the matter not being contained in the guidelines, but I hope that if he reads paragraph 72 on page 26 he may find that they are adequately covered. The new controls in this Bill will consolidate what I have described, but it would be wholly impracticable as well as unnecessary to insist on 24-hour cover in all circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned that he would be happy to speak to Amendments Nos. 31 and 39, which involve a rather different subject—Clauses 6 and 7 (I hope I have that right), which address a different matter but concern vets. A certificate will not be issued until we are satisfied that adequate arrangements exist for the provision of the services of a specialised veterinary surgeon. This will involve scrutiny of the arrangements for ensuring that appropriate cover will be available throughout each day. It is possible that a number of partners in a practice will be specified, or there may be other
436
arrangements. The arrangements would be adjusted to fit the circumstances.
I feel that the amendments proposed are inflexible. I also feel that they are unnecessary because they take no account of the difficulty of defining the word "available". Does this mean present at all times, available at half an hour's notice, or what does it mean? I think the matter is better left to the certificate conditions. I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will be reassured and will be able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Melchett: I will study with care what the noble Lord said. I should have said in introducing the amendment (I think the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, made this point anyway) that my understanding is that any large and reputable pharmaceutical company doing research on animals would provide 24-hour cover and would have available on a 24-hour basis (when I say "available", I mean available on the end of a telephone) not only a person responsible for the animals in that company's premises but also a qualified veterinarian. The noble Lord seemed to be saying that those standards would not necessarily be practical or be able to be applied to other establishments, unless I misheard him.
Lord Glenarthur: Without repeating myself, if the noble Lord studies what I said he will find that his concerns are met and that he can be reassured.
Lord Melchett: As I said, I shall study the noble Lord's words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 32:
[Printed earlier: col. 429.]
The noble Lord said: I formally move Amendment No. 32, which was linked with Amendment No. 26 and to which I spoke a few minutes ago. If the Committee approves Amendment No. 32 then immediately afterwards I shall move Amendment No. 33 and the corresponding amendment to Clause 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 32):
Page 5, line 43, at end insert—
("and the same person may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be specified under both paragraphs of this subsection.").
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
("(6) If it appears to any person specified in a certificate pursuant to subsection (5) above that the health or welfare of any such animal as is mentioned in that subsection gives rise to concern he shall—

(a) notify the person holding a personal licence who is in charge of the animal; or

(b) if there is no such person or it is not practicable to notify him, take steps to ensure that the animal is cared for and, if it is necessary for it to be killed, that it is killed by a method which is appropriate under Schedule 1 to this Act or approved by the Secretary of State.

(7) In any case to which subsection (6) above applies the person specified in the certificate pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above may also notify the person (if different) specified pursuant to paragraph (b) of that subsection; and the person specified pursuant to either paragraph of that subsection may also notify one of the inspectors appointed under this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33 and speak also to Amendment No. 36, which relates to Clause 7, and Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, which also relate to Clause 7 but which both deal with the same issue.
Amendment No. 36: Clause 7, page 6, line 36, after ("below") insert ("a person or");
Amendment No. 40: Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
("and the same person may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be specified under both paragraphs of this subsection.")
Amendment No. 41: Page 7, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
("(6) If it appears to any person specified in a certificate pursuant to subsection (5) above that the health or welfare of any such animal as is mentioned in that subsection gives rise to concern he shall take steps to ensure that it is cared for and, if it is necessary for it to be killed, that it is killed by a method appropriate under Schedule 1 to this Act or approved by the Secretary of State.
(7) In any case to which subsection (6) above applies the person specified in the certificate pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above may also notify the person (if different) specified pursuant to paragraph (b) of that subsection; and the person specified pursuant to either paragraph of that subsection may also notify one of the inspectors appointed under this Act.")
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Mishcon drew attention to what appeared to be unclear—and, so far as it was clear, was not right—in the two clauses dealing with what was to happen when the person responsible for the day-to-day care and/or the veterinary surgeon appointed to advise on health and welfare discovered an animal that was obviously in need of attention. What did they do? To whom did they go? In consultation with the Ministers, we have devised a clearer course of action in the amendments now before the Committee. Mr. David Mellor and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, put their heads together and here it is.
The Committee will realise that the two new features in this Bill are of great importance regarding the care of animals both in establishments where procedures are being carried out and in breeding and animal houses relating to this work. One is the appointment of a person who is responsible for day-to-day care, a named person, with statutory responsibility falling upon him (because the certificate will not be granted to the establishment concerned unless there is such a person) and a veterinary surgeon also attached to that establishment. We have merely provided that in certain circumstances the two responsibilities may
438
be combined in one fully qualified person where the Home Secretary is satisfied that the conditions of a particular establishment allow that to be done with convenience. However, normally there will be these two persons. Either or both of them may discover an animal that needs attention. The question is: what do they do then?
The amendments proposed shorten the chain of reference and of authority. The first responsibility for the care of the animals rests upon the personal licensee. That duty is imposed upon him under Clause 10 (2) (a) and (b) of the Bill. The condition of his licence will make the personal licensee responsible for the care of animals for which he is responsible under the licence.
Thus, when the discovery is made of an animal in need of attention, the first duty of the day-to-day care officer or of the vet will be to call in the personal licensee because it is his responsibility. Well, he may not be there. He may be on other work or, in certain circumstances, because the animal is not under procedures which are regulated, there may not be a personal licensee at all. Yet in the absence of the personal licensee (who, if he was available, must take responsibility) or if there is no personal licensee (then, obviously, they will not have one) the day-to-day care officer or the vet, or both of them, may decide on their own responsibility that the animal must be destroyed. This new version of Clauses 6 and 7 enables that to be done.
Where the animals are in conditions which raise general questions of their care and management, most likely the day-to-day care officer and the vet may wish to call in the inspector to look at conditions generally. However, up until now I have been describing the emergency that might arise when there is an animal suffering unendurable pain or distress about which something must be done. This revised version enables the day-to-day care officer or the vet, or both of them, to deal with it. That is a big responsibility because if they act in the absence of the personal licensee who is not available, then they may be destroying a good deal of the work that he is undertaking. It is not a light responsibility, but it goes straight to the heart of the emergency and enables the day-to-day care officer or the vet, or the two together, to decide that the animal should be put down and humanely destroyed. That is a much improved version of this procedure than was in the earlier clause in the Bill. So I beg to move Amendment No. 33, which achieves the purpose which I have described.
9.45 p.m.
Noble Lords must bear in mind that the intention is to have speedy decisions and quick action where animals are suffering unendurable pain or distress. That enables the people on the spot to take decisions if they cannot find a reference to the personal licensee. I therefore beg to move that provision in regard to Clause 6.
Similar considerations arise in the case of Clause 7, where, for breeding and supplying establishments, there is a condition that to be licensed a person must be appointed to be responsible for the day-to-day care of the animals bred or kept for breeding in the establishment. There are not two persons there because there is

439
not a personal licensee, but there is the officer for day-to-day responsibility plus the vet. Here again the power is put in the hands of the day-to-day care officer and/or the vet to ensure that steps are taken to have the animal cared for or, if necessary, to have it painlessly destroyed. I have spoken to the amendments to both Clause 6 and Clause 7, and will deal with the formal moving of them as they occur. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendment No. 34 is an amendment to No. 33.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 34 as an amendment to Amendment No. 33:
Line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and to speak to Amendment No. 35 as well.
Amendment No. 35: Line 19, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
I hope that these amendments might prove acceptable to my noble friend, and, if they do, then clearly amendments would also be needed (although I regret I have not tabled them) to Amendment No. 41. No doubt we could do that at a later stage. My noble friend has said that this amendment deals with the situation where people on the spot have to take action to put an end to unendurable pain or distress to an animal. We are talking about emergencies, I think it is fair to say, or certainly unusual circumstances, and, quite likely, if not almost always, circumstances where something has gone seriously wrong.
I welcome my noble friend's amendment, which I think clarifies matters considerably, but it seems to me that in those circumstances subsection (7) of my noble friend's amendment places too weak a duty on the person who has had to deal with this problem, who has had to take the action. It seems to me that if they are not the person responsible for the day-to-day care of the animal, that person must be notified of what has happened. That is the effect of my first amendment, to line 16. If the person is not the person in day-to-day care of the animal, they would have to notify the person who is in day-to-day care of the animal. I would have thought that that would be acceptable to all concerned.
The second amendment insists that the vet who is responsible for these animals also has to be notified about what has happened. It is not a discretionary duty on the person who has dealt with the unendurable pain or distress: they have to tell the vet responsible for the animals what has been done and what has happened. They are minor amendments. I think they are important, and I hope they will prove acceptable both to my noble friend and to the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I point out that we had many arguments about the words "may" and "shall"; but this is quite a different one. This is not putting an obligation on the Government which the Government intensely dislike: it is putting a clear-cut obligation on someone on duty which, as we have explained already, is a very serious duty. He should have a clear obligation in the circumstances defined to make a report, as stated in the Bill.
Viscount Davidson: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has proposed an amendment which would alter the wording of the new subsection (7), substituted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is to require the named person or the veterinary surgeon to notify the inspector in any case in which the health or welfare of an animal gives rise to concern. Without this amendment the new subsection (7) enables the named person or veterinary surgeon to notify the inspector if he sees fit. But unlike the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, it does not oblige him to do so in every case; for example, when the animal's indisposition was trivial and easily remedied. In many cases, clearly consultation with the inspector will not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton's amendment provides a welcome classification of the responsibilities of the named person or the vet. I suggest that the addition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is unnecessary and wholly inappropriate in trivial cases and would be wasteful in operation. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as it stands.
Lord Prys-Davies: May I ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton? If the personal licensee or the day-to-day care officer of the establishment fails to act in the circumstances sketched out in the first paragraph of the amendment, will they have committed an offence under this Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This just shows the problems of the statute law when you try to spell out what reasonable people should do, prompted by their own common sense, in a certain situation. It is impossible to provide for every eventuality; but let me say that the duty rests upon the personal licensee to take care of the animals that he is using, which are within his project licence and within the scope of his responsibilities. That is his duty. If the day-to-day care officer and the veterinary surgeon—either or both of them—are of the opinion that an animal in the care of a personal licensee is in need of urgent attention and that something should be done to relieve its agony or that it should be destroyed, they first get the personal licensee.
My noble friend asks what happens if he does not do anything. The answer is that it is his duty and he may be reported by those who have noticed the animal in distress. They can report to the inspector if they wish. I do not think it should necessarily be a duty which is imposed upon them. One does not know the variety of circumstances in which this situation may arise. The word "shall" is always dangerous in situations which are capable of considerable variety and difficulty and of emotional intensity. These men or women have responsibilities and duties and they must discharge them. We cannot stand over them all the time. But I submit that the personal licensee must discharge his duty and there are other people around in the establishment who take overriding responsibility for the conduct of affairs in the establishment, to whom

441
reference can be made. But the inspector is there to be called in if anybody feels the necessity for that to be done.
However, I do not think we ought to prescribe "shall" in either case. I think we have to leave something to the judgment of the officer who is called upon to take the action. If he has the Act of Parliament brandished in front of his nose and it says "You shall", he then says, "I do not think it is appropriate that I should, but the Act says 'You shall'." That is the sort of absurd situation that can arise in conditions of this kind. So I suggest that the word "may", to a person of reasonable judgment and sense of responsibility, is enough. I hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett will not press Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and that the amendment on the Marshalled List will be adopted. I think that it makes adequate provision for a chain of reference which is reasonably short, and for authority to act absolutely clearly in the hands of one or other of the two officers who have this responsibility. I think that it accomplishes what we set out to do.
I end by saying that this is a notable reform. An oversight of the care and welfare of the animals, which are in the hands of scientists, experimenters and those using the animals, is put into the hands of a designated named person in the establishment who, in most cases, will have a veterinary surgeon on whose advice he can also rely.
Lord Melchett: May I ask my noble friend a question? I may have misunderstood this, but I had assumed that the words "gives rise to concern" implied that something was going wrong. I had not assumed that this subsection was designed to apply in, for example, circumstances where it had become slightly too hot or slightly too cold in the laboratory or in the area where the animals were kept. This provides power for somebody to come in and kill the animal. My noble friend spoke about people on the spot putting an end to unendurable pain or distress. I had assumed that it was circumstances of that sort for which this subsection was designed, so as to allow somebody on the spot to step in immediately and deal with the matter.
I was therefore surprised to hear from the Government Front Bench the suggestion that this clause could well apply to a whole series of very minor incidents such as where it had become a bit too hot or a bit too dry. Clearly, it would be a little onerous for, the inspector to be told about what had happened. I am still not sure whether my first amendment, under which a person responsible for the day-to-day care would have to be told, is really unnecessary. I wonder whether my noble friend can comment on that. Have I misunderstood the circumstances in which this subsection is likely to be used?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: As I understand the position, the words "health and welfare" are of wide application, not only in an emergency but in general. There may be some lack of care over a whole collection of animals in a particular establishment, or animals in a certain section of an establishment. So it is a responsibility that has to be exercised in the broadest sense.
442
But, clearly, in the sort of emergency that I have described, the day-to-day officer and a veterinary surgeon, or both of them, would act only if in their judgment something had gone wrong, that the animals were in a predicament that it was never intended they should be in and that it was intolerable that they should have to continue to bear it. It would clearly be where something had gone wrong. They might be mistaken in thinking that something had gone wrong and that is why they would call upon the personal licensee to come and look. He may say "It's all right. I am afraid that this is what has to happen to this animal in the course of the experiment." If he decides that it has not gone wrong, and that what is happening is what was contemplated, it is still open to them, according to my reading of this amendment, to refer to the inspector anything which they think is going wrong. This oversight is not selective. It is general, it is comprehensive and it is continuous.
Viscount Davidson: It may help the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if I say that I understand that the words "gives rise to concern" will include not only extreme concern but mild concern as well. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the fact that he does not do anything is not an offence; but, on the other hand, he will very likely lose his licence, or position, or job, or all three.
10 p.m.
Lord Melchett: This is an important change to the Bill and a marked improvement, so I do not apologise for pursuing my amendment. There is clearly some difference of emphasis at least between the Government and my noble friend about the kind of circumstances in which the subsection might apply. If the Government's version is correct—and I am not questioning it for a moment—it may be that it would be unduly onerous to make the amendment to line 19 and insist that one of the inspectors appointed under the Act is notified every time somebody has cause for mild concern, although I hope it will be a requirement of one of the licences—I am not sure which one—that the inspector is notified whenever there is cause for grave concern of the kind my noble friend spoke about a moment ago.
My first amendment does not apply to notifying the inspector; it says that the person responsible for the day-to-day care of the animals has to be notified whenever concern has arisen. The argument there is rather different. It will usually be the person in day-to-day care of the animals who is taking the action, but it is possible that it will be somebody else. That is what the words "if different" in the brackets apply to, if I have read the amendment correctly. Even if there is sufficient mild concern for somebody else, not being the person responsible for the day-to-day care, to intervene in the care of the animals, it should be a requirement that the person responsible for day-to-day care shall be informed about what has happened.
I wonder whether either my noble friend or the Government feel it would be sensible to draw a distinction as regards the requirement to notify the person in day-to-day care of the animal—I can see a different argument applying to the requirement to notify the inspector.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have already dealt with the eternal difficulties about "may" and "shall". Mostly, "may" means "shall". Mostly "shall" means that there are exceptions to be found to make sense of it. That I fear is the position here. If "shall" is inserted, it may lead to needless bureaucracy and to avoidable friction. We have to realise that personal relationships will be involved in laboratories where animals are being used and feelings may rise a little between one person and another as to the treatment being given to particular animals. I feel that the wording of my amendment is right. It is the clear duty of a responsible officer—named, nominated and given the statutory position he would occupy as day-to-day care officer, and the veterinary surgeon similarly—to decide quite fearlessly when he should report a matter to the inspector, and he does not need the statutory direction to do so. The fact that he may do it, and may be expected to do it in certain circumstances, would be enough.
Lord Melchett: I think I accept that point but, with respect, unless I am misreading this my noble friend is wrong in saying that the person responsible for day-to-day care will always know what happens. That is what line 16 of the amendment refers to. It says that he,
"may also notify the person … specified pursuant to paragraph (b) of that subsection".
That person whom he "may also notify" is the person responsible for day-to-day care. So it is quite possible for one of these instances to arise—mild concern or considerable concern—and for the person responsible for day-to-day care of the animals not to be told about it.
I appreciate that "may" and "shall" always give rise to endless difficulties but as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out, we are not applying this duty to the Government but to an individual working in a laboratory who has had to take over control of animals from the person in day-to-day care because concern had arisen. That gives rise to questions quite different from the requirement to notify a Home Office inspector. Unless I am misreading this provision—and it is not all that easy to follow—I believe that my point is still valid and that, with great respect, my noble friend has not answered it.
Viscount Davidson: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord again. It is right that either of the two should be under a duty to see that a sick animal is cared for if the personal licensee in charge of the animal cannot be found and, if necessary, to see that the animal is humanely killed. If the personal licensee can be found then of course the duty rests on him. It is most important not to dilute that duty; it is his responsibility.
If the named person or the veterinary surgeon believes that the personal licensee is not fulfilling his duty, then he ought to consult the Home Office inspector, and the amendments empower him to do so. If there is no personal licensee, as will always be the case at a breeding or supplying establishment, which is covered by Clause 7, and will often be the case at a scientific procedure establishment, covered by Clause 6, since in such an establishment there will be many
444
stock animals not yet used for scientific procedures, then the named person and the veterinary surgeon will undoubtedly see it as their duty to ensure that action is taken. It is only right that the Bill should make that plain.
I believe that the Committee again has cause to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I urge your Lordships to agree to his amendments.
Lord Melchett: I shall read what the noble Viscount has just said in Hansard. To be perfectly frank, I did not follow his response as he gave it. I am sure it was helpful, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 34.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question now is, that the main amendment, Amendment No. 33, be agreed to?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Breeding and supplying establishments]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 36:
[Printed earlier: col. 437.]
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 36):
Clause 7, page 6, line 36, after ("below") insert ("a person or")
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 6, line 37, at end insert—
("() In determining whether to grant a certificate to a breeding or supplying establishment the Secretary of State shall in particular have regard to the need for securing—

(a) that animals will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as respects construction, size of quarters, number of occupants, exercising facilities, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness;

(b) that animals will be adequately supplied with suitable food, drink and bedding material, adequately exercised, and (so far as necessary) visited at suitable intervals;

(c) that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread among animals of infectious or contagious diseases, including the provision of adequate isolation facilities;

(d) that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the animals in case of fire or other emergency;

(e) that a register be kept containing a description of any animals received into the establishment, date of arrival and departure, and the name and address of the owner, such register to be available for inspection at all times by an inspector appointed under this Act;

and shall specify such conditions in the certificate licence, if granted, as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in the particular case for securing all the objects specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in some ways a parallel to the amendments that mention the Zoos Licensing Act, which were Amendments Nos. 28

445
and 37 to which I spoke earlier. In this case I have drawn on the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. I wanted to take it separately because it seems to me that the parallels between the requirements of the 1963 Act and of the breeding and supply establishments that will be designated under this Bill are certainly a great deal closer, if not exactly the same, as compared with those licensed under the Zoos Licensing Act.
The Animal Boarding Establishments Act lays down certain requirements to which the Secretary of State shall have regard before issuing a certificate to a hoarding establishment. It seemed to me that either in the Bill or in the guidelines—and I would prefer in the Bill—the Secretary of State should be required to have regard to a number of matters before issuing a licence. Just so that we do not get into an old argument, I should emphasis that I am looking to the Secretary of State to have regard to certain matters; there would be no absolute requirement for him to do so. It is simply that the Secretary of State would have his mind directed to certain matters by Parliament and upon which Parliament gives him the power to impose conditions when he issues a licence.
The matters to which the Secretary of State would have to pay regard in paragraphs (a) to (e) are quite straightforward and I do not intend to describe them. They are exactly the same as the requirements in the Animal Boarding Establishments Act. However, there is one other point I should like to make. It seems to me that there will be some difficulty in the overlap between establishments that are breeding and supplying animals for laboratory use and other boarding or breeding establishments that may be licensed under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963.
For example, I understand that there are kennels which provide animals both for the Royal College of Surgeons' experimental establishment at Buxton Brown Farm and also for the pet trade or for other purposes. Presumably it is not always known until the animal is actually sold for which purpose it will be used. In these circumstances, I wonder whether the requirements of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 apply to the animals or whether the requirements of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will apply. It seems to me that to avoid confusion and overlap it would be simpler for the same sort of conditions to be considered when issuing licences both under this Bill and the existing Act. For that reason I hope the amendment will be seen as helpful and not disruptive. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: At a quick glance the provisions contained in the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 look broadly on the right lines for the sort of animals that are held in boarding establishments. But they do not, of course, cater for laboratory animals and they were not designed to, either. For example, I refer to mammalian foetuses which certainly can need to be looked after in the way that we are referring to with laboratory animals.
A much more detailed code of practice for the care and treatment of laboratory animals has been drawn up by the Royal Society in collaboration with the
446
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Naturally my right honourable friend will consult widely on this code, when it is available, and I hope that that will be early next year. He will, of course, consult the Animal Procedures Committee and is most unlikely to adopt the code without the committee's agreement to every single detail of it. All this is provided for in Clause 21(2) and the noble Lord will see that it gives the reassurance he needs. I hope that his concerns are met and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful for that information. The noble Lord did not deal with the problem of an overlap between establishments licensed under this Bill and those licensed under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. I know that I did not give him notice of my question but I shall be happy if he will write to me later on this matter.
Lord Glenarthur: All I can tell the noble Lord is that the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 is concerned with the boarding of other people's animals. I think that is the answer the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that it is but perhaps I can leave the noble Lord to look at this matter and if there is a problem he can write to me. If there is not a problem the noble Lord need not bother because I do not seek to make extra work. However, my understanding is that there are boarding establishments licensed under the 1963 Act which breed animals which can then be sold both to the pet trade and for scientific procedures. It seems to me that it would be difficult to know under which conditions the breeding animals are meant to be kept if they are potentially covered by two Acts of Parliament and two separate and possibly different codes of practice or requirements about how the animals should be kept. That is the point I am seeking to raise.
Lord Glenarthur: I will willingly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 40:
[Printed earlier: col. 437.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 40):
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
("and the same person may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be specified under both paragraphs of this subsection.")
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 41:
[Printed earlier: col. 437.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 41):
Page 7, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
("(6) If it appears to any person specified in a certificate pursuant to subsection (5) above that the health or welfare of any such animal as is mentioned in that subsection gives rise to concern he shall take steps to ensure that it is cared for and, if it is necessary for it to be killed, that it is killed by a method appropriate under Schedule 1 to this Act or approved by the Secretary of State.
(7) In any case to which subsection (6) above applies the person specified in the certificate pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above may also notify the person (if different) specified pursuant to paragraph (b) of that subsection; and the person specified pursuant to either paragraph of that subsection may also notify one of the inspectors appointed under this Act.")
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Consultation]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("who shall not be the inspector responsible for visiting the designated establishment or place where regulated procedures are carried out where the applicant for the licence worked in the past or will in future if the licence is granted.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise if this amendment is not drafted correctly, but it is designed to ensure that, where an inspector is asked to comment on an application for a licence, it should be a different inspector from the one who normally works with the people who are applying for the licence or the establishment where the work will be carried out under that licence.
My reason for suggesting this amendment is twofold. First, while everybody has a very high regard for the Home Office inspectors, I am sure that the inspectors themselves will not mind me saying that some of them will be more experienced than others and even that some of them will be rather better at their jobs than others. That applies in all walks of life. It seems to me that, while this Bill places a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the Home Office Inspectorate, therein lies one danger, and that is that there might develop rather too friendly and even cosy a relationship between a particular inspector and an establishment which he or she is inspecting regularly. To guard against that possibility, it seemed to me that it would be valuable for a second inspector to be involved in the process of looking at the licence application.
The second reason for suggesting this procedure is that I understand that in future particular inspectors will develop expertise in particular areas of research. It would therefore seem to me to be sensible that an inspector with particular expertise in one area of research should look at a licence application which fell within that area of expertise, and that would also normally involve a different inspector looking at the application. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am in sympathy with my noble friend's amendment. It is important that the inspector who advises on the grant of the licence or certificate
448
should be seen to be independent of the applicant and of the establishment. I think my noble friend made the point that if the inspector knows the applicant or the establishment too well there is just the possibility that he may accept too readily their assumptions and their standards, and be less reluctant to challenge them. I should have thought that it would be unreasonable to put a Home Office inspector in a position where there could be that kind of role conflict.
The Earl of Halsbury: In heaven's name, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut! Of course the inspector and the experimenter are on cosy terms. They see one another regularly. The experimenter discusses his future experiments with the inspector. If he wants to vary some procedure that has been agreed, he asks the inspector to come round and agree to it with him. The idea that there should be two inspectors to one experimenter is really absolute theroretical nonsense. I oppose this amendment.
Lord Airedale: Nevertheless, I hope that inspectors will be moved around a good deal. Tax inspectors are moved around a good deal, and this is thought to be healthy. Inspectors should not stay for long periods in one neighbourhood and become tremendously friendly with particular people in that area. It is healthy that they should move around. I hope that these inspectors will be moved around quite a lot.
Lord Glenarthur: I honestly cannot describe to the noble Lord precisely how inspectors will be moved around, but I do not think that he need be under any misapprehension: they take the work they do extremely seriously. I have heard first-hand examples of people who have been to a laboratory when an inspector has been visiting and he has stopped something there and then. Those are probably companies or laboratories with which the inspector has the sort of relationship that the noble Lord feels might be too cosy. I assure him that they will pursue their work rigorously. In all seriousness, I do not believe that there is the danger that he supposes.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Some noble Lords appear to think that inspectorates of this nature are there for the purpose of prosecuting. They are not; they are there for the purpose of persuading. They have worked in that way since they were first introduced in the 1830s. Far from moving inspectors around as though they are likely to be corrupted by contact with the people with whom they are working, the basis of their work is friendship and respect. I think that there is a profound misunderstanding of how some of our administrative procedures operate.
Lord Melchett: In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I appreciated that there was a cosy relationship, as he, I think, described it, between an inspector and people working in the establishment which he visits. The inspector will go there regularly and see a number of people. As the noble Earl said, he will be advising people on their project applications, and so on. It seems to me therefore that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is that the Secretary of State will have had the benefit of a particular

449
inspector's advice in the sense that the inspector will have helped to mould the project application in the first place.
I am afraid that everything that has been said reinforces my view that this is a perfectly sensible amendment. The noble Earl seems to have forgotten that the Secretary of State has to consult one of his inspectors under Clause 9(1) when an application for a licence is received. An inspector has to be consulted; I am not suggesting that two inspectors should be consulted. I am simply saying that the one inspector who has been consulted should not be the one who helped to "mould the application", in the noble Earl's words, in the first place. It seems to me that at that stage, the inspector having worked with the establishment, it would be sensible for another inspector to look at the application for the Secretary of State. Somebody will have to do it. I am not suggesting any extra work for the inspectorate, but I am suggesting that it would be useful to have a fresh mind considering the application.
Although the noble Lord sought to dismiss the amendment as a little bit foolish, as I understand it, steps are being taken by the inspectorate to develop expertise in particular areas of research. It recognises that it is impossible for one inspector to know everything and it is valuable to develop expertise and also for inspectors to get together to discuss the approach that they adopt, and so on. That is all very sensible and welcome. I am not criticising that; I welcome it. But that does not seem to me to suggest that it would be nonsense to have another inspector not involved in the establishment to look at the application. It would not involve extra work; it would simply involve a second inspector looking at the project, which, as the noble Earl said, will have been moulded with advice from and discussion with the inspector working in the establishment.
My question is: is it sensible for the inspector who moulded the project application then to give advice on it to the Secretary of State, given, in the noble Earl's words, his cosy relationship with the people with whom he is working? I do not think that it would be. That is why the amendment is put down.
The Earl of Halsbury: Does the noble Lord accept that the experimenter is totally dependent on the inspector? The inspector is not in any way dependent on the experimenter. The Secretary of State can ask for as many opinions as he wants. The inspector can discuss the matter with as many of his colleagues as he wants. But do we need to write this into a statute?
Here I follow the excellent philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I congratulate him on his remarks. We all admire many facets of his character—his energy, his eloquence, and so on. However, the most remarkable feature of his character, and one which I admire especially, is his growth potential. Since he and I went into partnership on this in 1979, he has grown in experience, in wisdom and in knowledge of the subject. He should receive the congratulations of your Lordships' House.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not believe that I can add to what has been said, rising, as I do, again. I urge the noble Lord to think very hard about what he suggests.
450
He would essentially succeed, if this amendment were accepted, in denying my right honourable friend the very best advice that he needs. I cannot see the logic of that. I do not believe that the noble Lord need be as concerned as he is about the cosy relationship that he describes and one that I assure him may be based on trust and mutual respect for the work that is carried out, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, described just now. I cannot see that this leads, or has led, in any sense to the sort of concern that he expressed.
Lord Melchett: I shall consider that point. I accept that there is some force in the argument. I believe that there is also some force in the argument that I am putting. It may be that, given there are arguments on either side it would be sensible to leave the Secretary of State free, as he now is, to consult any one of his inspectors and not necessarily the one—the Bill does not tell him to do so—who works with the establishment.
I do not take the view of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, about which inspector will be called upon. This is not stated in the Bill or in the guidelines. It could be any one of the inspectors, as I understand it. The Government have not said whether or not it will be the person who works in the establishment. I sought to make it all one way. It may be that the balance of advantage lies in leaving some discretion so long as the discretion is occasionally exercised. This point has been brought up several times this evening. I hope that the admiration for my noble friend Lord Houghton, which all of us share, will not prevent our having a proper Committee stage discussion about a very important piece of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert ("but shall consult the Animal Procedures Committee about any licence application which:

(a) involves the infliction of pain of substantial severity, or

(b) is for the purpose of training in manual skills.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment involves a different matter. It would require consultation with the Animal Procedures Committee about a licence application that involves the infliction of pain of substantial severity or is for the purpose of training in manual skills. I know that there has been considerable resistance during the course of today about writing into the Bill particular matters. But this does not require the Secretary of State to refuse a licence. It does not require the Secretary of State to come to any particular conclusion. But it would bring in the Animal Procedures Committee to look at licence applications that cause particular concern to the public. I hope that it is drafted in a way that respects the spirit of the Bill and the way that the Bill has been produced.
There is, as noble Lords will know, serious concern about, I accept, a minority, possibly a very small minority, of procedures that involve the infliction of pain of substantial severity. The fact that those things happen very rarely seems to me to argue for the amendment. It would not be placing an unduly onerous burden on the secretariat of the Animal

451
Procedures Committee or the members of the committee itself if such cases had to be referred to them. I hope that I have said enough to show that this is a serious amendment that raises some important issues. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly understand the concerns that underlie the noble Lord's amendment. But the procedure that he suggests is, I believe, impracticable and misconceived. It is not the function of the Animal Procedures Committee to review all licence applications in whole classes as a matter of course. The routine consideration of licence applications is properly the responsibility of the inspectorate.
It concerns and, frankly, surprises me that the noble Lord should apparently lack confidence in the inspectors' ability to do this work, which I do not believe they deserve. I certainly do not share his worry. Of course, there will be occasions when the Animal Procedures Committee is asked to look at a proposal for work which raises particular issues of concern. However, the effect of the amendment would be to occupy a good part of the committee's time reviewing quite unnecessarily all licence applications in two narrowly defined categories and to go on doing so until someone saw fit to amend the legislation.
The committee would quickly become moribund. The work of the Animal Procedures Committee at any given time must be for the Secretary of State and for the committee itself to determine. I do not deny the importance of the issues which the noble Lord has raised. Certainly the Animal Procedures Committee will be able to provide valuable advice on the assessment of work which involves severe procedures. It has already been suggested by the present advisory committee, and we agree, that it would be useful in the initial stages for the committee to monitor the consideration for applications for project licences for training in microsurgery. But to shackle the committee in the way which the noble Lord's amendment suggests would be disastrous.
Inspectors are all qualified doctors; or they are all vets. They are both. They all have a good deal of professional experience before appointment. I can assure the noble Lord that they are all very independently-minded people. I believe that the noble Lord's concerns are misplaced and I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: What the noble Lord has said about applications involving training in microsurgery is welcome and deals to some extent with the second part of my amendment, but not wholly. I am afraid I am not entirely happy with what he has said about the first part. He has suggested that to look at these applications would completely bog down the Animal Procedures Committee. This is a committee which will be able to set up technical sub-committees; so I assume that the noble Lord is saying that there are so many applications in the two categories which I have mentioned—narrowly drawn, as he said, and I think I am quoting his own words—that the Animal Procedures Committee, which has the ability to set up
452
sub-committees, will be completely bogged down in considering them. I find that horrifying, to be frank with the noble Lord.
Is he really saying that there are so many applications, for example, that will involve the infliction of pain of substantial severity that a sub-committee of the Animal Procedures Committee set up to consider those applications would be bogged down with those and with nothing else? I had understood there were very few applications for project licences which would involve this degree of pain to the animals involved, and that it would be a matter simply of looking at half a dozen every three months, or a very small number, and that it would not be an onerous burden on a sub-committee of the Animal Procedures Committee.
May I ask the noble Lord one question. Can he quantify in either of the two categories I have mentioned the number of applications which might be involved, because if it really is a very large number I accept from him that it would bog the committees down. But I think that it raises other problems in its place. However, I certainly withdraw the amendment if hundreds of applications are going to be involved in these two categories.
Perhaps I can make one other point to the noble Lord. While I welcome the changes it makes, to some extent the Bill involves a weakening of current procedures because at present an outside assessment is always necessary for an application. I know that that has become widely regarded, and indeed has been said by some of those involved, to be more or less a rubber stamping of the applications, but, nevertheless, that outside authority has had to be sought.
As I say, I do not complain about the changes that the Bill makes. I think that they will involve an improvement overall. But it seems to me that in procedures which involve the infliction of substantially severe pain there is an argument for saying that some independent outside assessment would be valuable.
I do not think that this should be seen as a criticism of the Home Office inspectorate. I do not see why that is so, because the Bill says that the Secretary of State can consult an outside assessor. Nobody has suggested that that is a slap in the face for the Home Office inspectorate or an insult to them. It is a sensible provision which the Government have put into the Bill. I do not think that my suggestion should be seen as any more insulting to the inspectorate than the provisions that the Government have already put in this clause in the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has asked me to give him some figures. I cannot give him precise figures. However, so far as the first category is concerned, the number will certainly run into hundreds, and there will be a few for the second category. I canot give precise figures. However, there will be less for the second category than there will for the first category. Most of them will be fairly simple or straightforward.
Nevertheless, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment will be to tie the hands of the committee in a way which, quite honestly, is unrealistic. It will do no good to anybody. It will not do any good to the

453
animals. I do not believe that whatever the noble Lord now says about my implying that he has in any way written down the inspectorate really helps the issue. The fact is that it is a matter ideally suited for the inspectorate, and it would tie the hands of the committee in the way that I described earlier. I have given the noble Lord what figures I am able to give at this stage; if it is possible to give him any more I shall do so, but it may not be possible. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord a little.
Lord Melchett: No, I am afraid I am not reassured, but at this time of the evening I do not intend to pursue the matter any further. However, in view of what the noble Lord said it is something to which I should like to come back at the next stage of the Bill. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Viscount Long: In view of the lateness of the hour, I think it would be a good idea to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.