HL Deb 03 February 1986 vol 470 cc913-20

4.13 p.m.

Debate resumed on the Question, That the Bill do now pass.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I shall be brief. Some six or seven years ago I launched my Laboratory Animals Protection Bill into the pipeline, thereby initiating the process which has culminated in the Third Reading of the Government Bill this afternoon. Only one feature has marred the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. During the Committee stage we were robbed of the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who was at the time on the sick list.

We were glad to welcome him back at the Report stage. I myself was prepared to treat him with all the tenderness due to a convalescent. It was quite unnecessary by way of precaution. Without notice, and quite unexpectedly, he want off like a Chinese cracker. Detonation after detonation followed one another from the Bench where he sits, scattering the Government Front Bench like chaff before a desert wind and leaving him master of the battlefield.

I am so glad that in the privacy of conversation they have managed to resolve these matters. In a few minutes I shall be asked whether I am content that this Bill should now pass, and to that I shall assent. I have only two words to add to it; Nunc dimittis.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I shall not take much time. I should like, both on behalf of those who wish to defend animals and those who realise the importance of research, to thank the Government for having introduced this Bill. It strikes a happy medium between the two. Though it may possibly disappoint the extremists on either side, I think it is good that they should be disappointed. I am most grateful.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I want to say a brief word. I agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that this is a good Bill. It is a better Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House than it was when it arrived, and for that I have no doubt that we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He has responded to many amendments—and many, I am conscious, from me or with my name to them—with considerable courtesy. I am grateful for the helpful attitude adopted both by the noble Lord and by his colleague the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and the officials at the Home Office who have been responsible for the Bill. I thank all those involved very much indeed.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will improve things only slightly so far as laboratory animals are concerned. That is a modest claim for a Bill which is the first one Parliament has considered and put on to the statute book for over a hundred years. But, as my noble friend Lord Houghton reminded us a number of times, the Bill certainly contains the potential to improve matters considerably. I agree with him about that, but I think, with him—and I was glad to hear the points he made—that the Bill could, and should, do a little more now on the face of it.

Before mentioning the points which I feel we still have not resolved satisfactorily may I say something on my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northfield, who unfortunately was not able to stay for the time taken by the Statements? He and I have not always agreed about all the amendments on the Bill, but we agree about one thing. I do not want to detract at all from the commitment shown by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and David Mellor at the Home Office, but it is clear that no government would have been prepared to introduce legislation on this subject without the help and co-operation of my noble friend Lord Houghton, and his willingness to take part in the difficult job of reaching compromises.

I am all too conscious that that leads to more criticism than praise whatever the compromise turns out to be. That contribution has been vital. It would have been vital to any government. His contribution to the future welfare of laboratory animals cannot be underestimated. Whatever are the rights or wrongs, the pluses and minuses of this Bill, it is clearly a considerable improvement over the law we have now.

There are still some improvements that can be made to the Bill and I hope that another place will look at this. One thing that was not mentioned by my noble friend is that I still firmly believe that greater controls—and therefore more bureaucracy—costs, and inconvenience should be imposed on those who wish to do experiments which involve the highest degree of suffering. We made several attempts at Committee and Report stages to persuade the Government of that and did not succeed. I am still convinced that the thousand-odd experiments which will have to be covered in the transfer period and the 500-odd a year subsequently justify a greater degree of inspection and consideration by outside experts, whether from the Animal Procedures Committee or elsewhere, than the Bill currently requires.

I strongly agree with the comments made by my noble friend about the Animal Procedures Committee. The clause about secrecy is unnecessarily draconian and will deter people from coming forward to serve on the committee. It is clearly right that the committee has power to initiate its own investigations. I am sure that that bit of the Bill must be changed.

I still believe that while we have improved the remit of the Animal Procedures Committee we have not got it right yet, and the committee should have a more forward-looking and positive remit to reduce, where possible, the number of animals used in experimental procedures. That would be an important change if another place were able to consider it.

Finally, there is a category of improvement concerned with the checking and monitoring of what happens in laboratories. I do not think we have put a sufficiently stringent requirement upon those who run laboratories, or other places where animals are experimented on, to monitor what happens to animals that are likely to die or suffer. The stories of people going through laboratories when they open up in the morning and clearing out dead animals that have died during the night are legion. More stringent requirements are needed there. Outside the scope of the Bill, I am sure that the Home Office needs to be convinced that there need to be greater resources in terms of manpower especially for the inspectorate to make this Bill work satisfactorily.

Having said all that, I believe we have made some significant improvements to the Bill. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his co-operation in that. I wish the Bill not a speedy but a considered passage through another place on to the statute book.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, this is a welcome and very necessary Bill. Any Bill which updates an Act going back as far as 1876 is extremely welcome. It is an achievement of your Lordships' House that this Bill has passed through all its stages without any major dissension. We all look forward to the day, if it ever comes, when experiments on animals become completely unnecessary. But if we are to conquer the malignant diseases of cancer, cystic fibrosis and so on, these experiments will be necessary. I believe that during its passage through this House the Bill has dotted a number of "i's" and crossed a number of "t's". When it goes to another place some more dots and crosses may be necessary.

I hope that the Government will take on board that the inspectors who will be needed here must be very highly trained. They will have many heavy responsibilities thrust on their shoulders. The amendment regarding registered breeding establishments is welcome because there have been a number of reports (I suggest that many are false) of animals being gathered from the streets and placed into these laboratories for experiments.

I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the very efficient and courteous way in which he has piloted this difficult Bill through your Lordships' House, and other noble Lords from all parts of the House who have contributed to an agreeable and constructive debate. Hopefully, in another place the Bill will have the same practical and sensible passage that it has enjoyed in your Lordships' House.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to add a brief word after those whom I call the "heavyweights" have spoken. First, I should thank Lord Glenarthur who has shepherded this Bill with so much goodwill, tolerance and sense of concern. These qualities we now expect from the noble Lord, and I hope we shall not be disappointed on any other Bill. We are grateful to him for the way he has put this Bill through.

Although there have been criticisms of the Bill from some of the custodians of animal welfare, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, one of the great pioneers in this field, has been pleased with the Bill. The speech he made today made this quite clear. In the course of our discussions and debates we have come across the conflict between the interests of animal welfare and the requirements of science and medicine which are features of our times. But all the time there has been complete agreement on the need for a balance between the freedom of scientists to carry out scientific investigations and our concern for the animals that will be adversely affected in this process. Many of us have repeatedly stressed that the safeguards for animals in this Bill should be there and be seen as a protection for them against unnecessary suffering, but also should accurately represent and reflect the measure of concern that people in this country genuinely feel for animals. It is a concern that we have every reason to be proud of.

While this need for balance has been agreed on by all the speakers, there have been arguments about the best way to put it all into effect. The dissension lay in three different areas which still give rise to some anxiety and which I am sure will be the subject of a great deal of attention when the Bill reaches another place. It is generally agreed that the successful working of the Bill will depend on the code of practice, but the concern is that the code of practice is still in draft form and will remain so until the Bill reaches the statute book.

Secondly, it is also generally agreed that the Bill concerns animal suffering. This is what my noble friend Lord Melchett has stressed throughout the Bill. It has been pointed out from all sides of the House that all possible safeguards should be brought in to deal with the prevention and elimination of pain in animals. Many suggestions have been made, stressed and brought forward again as to how this should be done. For example, there should be adequate training for licensees and there should be constant surveillance of animals undergoing operations. This is especially important at night and at the weekends. These points were brought out repeatedly to try to deal with this terrible and repugnant aspect of the Bill before us, that these animals should undergo pain.

The third area has already been stressed by my noble friends, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett; it is the role of the Animal Procedures Committee. We are a little disappointed that the Animal Procedures Committee has not been given an even more substantial role so that it would have powers of supervision and the freedom on its own initiative to comment or to make proposals on any issue which it considers to be relevant.

In conclusion, we were delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when on Second Reading he informed the House of the substantial reduction in the number of experiments on animals between the years 1976 and 1984. The figure has decreased from 5.5 million to 3.5 million. Although the Government did not accept the arguments pressed by my noble friend Lord Melchett that the Bill should legislate specifically for a reduction in the number of experiments on animals, we hope and believe that one of the main effects of the Bill will be a reduction in the number of such experiments. Our eventual goal should be the total elimination of animals in scientific experimentation. We are glad that the noble Lord the Minister has so often been sympathetic and co-operative and has accepted numerous amendments. Indeed, we are glad that he should today have accepted an amendment that many noble Lords found of great importance from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.

As previous speakers have said, we know that the Bill would not have come about without a great deal of hard work by the department and with the help of those noble Lords who have toiled in this field for so many years. Before I end I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton. We all admire the way he recovered from the bit of scientific procedure that he underwent in the middle of this Bill. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who brought all the expertise most fluently expressed as he always does to our debates, and to my noble friend Lord Melchett, without whom the Bill would not have changed so much. We can only hope that history will show that the Bill will have been a significant step forward.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, I shall be very brief but I cannot resist the temptation to say "Thank you" on my own behalf and echo the thanks that have been given to all those who have taken part in this debate and also to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his very great help on a number of points. All that I should like to do in addition to that is to refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on Report—that the Bill as it stands represents a compromise of interests which are in conflict and which have a very great deal to be said for them on both sides—and to express the hope that they both expressed, that in another place the Bill will be treated in the same spirit of compromise as it has been dealt with in your Lordships' House.

It is always extremely difficult when it comes to amendments to know what are important matters of principle and what are details which will enable the Bill to function more smoothly. I very much hope that amendment from this stage on will be in the latter terms rather than the former.

Lord Airedale

My Lords, perhaps a single sentence should be uttered from these Benches. I am sure that we owed it to the laboratory animals to do something more for them than was done by the Act of 1876. It has taken us a very long time to get down to this task, and but for the energy and thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not believe that even yet we should be undertaking it. But at last, thank goodness, we seem to be achieving something. I wish the Bill well.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, our discussions today have completed our detailed consideration of the entirety of this Bill although, as has been forecast by those of your Lordships who have just spoken, in due course we may examine any amendments made to it in another place; and we have been given some indication of what sort of amendments there might be. The Bill introduces the first legislative changes for 109 years to the system of controlling experimental work carried out on living animals. This is an historic and notable development. We have had to look back at the vast changes in the biological sciences which have taken place since our parliamentary predecessors debated the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876; and we have had to look forward to the developments in science which are yet to come and which the new system of control must be able to encompass.

This Bill is notable in another respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, it has been made possible because of an unprecedented degree of co-operation across a wide range of interests. Your Lordships will be aware of the important contribution which has come from the moderate and responsible animal welfare bodies and in particular the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and certainly I share his view, which was added to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and others—an integral part of this was that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has given us his great knowledge and wisdom on this subject and all the benefit that comes from that.

In addition, science and industry have supported the aims of this Bill. During the long work of preparation—and it has been long—and during its passage through your Lordships' House they have given most generously of their expertise. And we have had the benefit of reasoning from many of your Lordships who have brought to bear enormous interest in the welfare of animals and experience of their use in scientific procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has a fine reputation as a defender of animals of all sorts, and, although I could not agree with everything that he said on every amendment, he gave us food for thought on several issues, for which I am grateful. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has brought a wealth of direct personal experience of procedures on animals to bear on our considerations and this Bill achieves what for him is an aim that he has been keen to achieve for so long. For what he and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, with his particular experience, have contributed I am most grateful.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Somers, my noble friend Lord Auckland, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have all brought feeling and concern to bear. I am grateful to all of them, as I am too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said and as your Lordships will be aware, it is he who has been the vital catalyst for change and who has harnessed so effectively the energies of all those who have sought to make a positive contribution to this undertaking.

I have referred to the range of interests and opinions involved. Looking back at our consideration of this Bill, it is clear that these different stands have been comprehensively and most ably represented. We have explored very thoroughly a wide range of important issues of detail and operation as well as looking critically at the essential spirit upon which the Bill is founded. It is of course the misfortune of the Government spokesman that he cannot (to borrow a phrase) please all of the people all of the time. But even though it has not been possible to incorporate all your Lordships' suggestions, I must say that we have derived great benefit from all the penetrating scrutiny which has been given by your Lordships to the wide range of important issues raised by this Bill. Your Lordships have also made a number of very helpful points which will need to be reflected and will be reflected in the next draft of the Home Office guidance note which we shall produce within the next two or three weeks.

I am sure that the benefit of our debates owes much to the manner in which this difficult subject has been approached. Anyone reading our debates will be deeply impressed by the common thread of humanity which has run through all the contributions that we have heard. From all quarters there has been a clear sense of responsibility towards the rest of the animal kingdom and a desire for the Bill to strike an appropriate balance between the need to avoid animal suffering and the importance of safeguarding our own communities. The Bill has been greatly improved as a result, and so too has our appreciation of the often subtle and intractable issues which it addresses.

This Bill does not sweep away the great legacy of our long experience in controlling animal experimentation. Instead it builds upon it, providing new mechanisms by which Parliament, the Secretary of State, his advisers and the inspectorate will be able to extend and improve the system of control. This will be to the benefit of both human society and animals. Again I thank your Lordships for many valuable contributions and for your kind references to the part that I have played. As to the part I play on other Bills, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, hinted, perhaps that is something I can undertake, in the terms used quite often on this Bill, to agree to consider without being further tempted. I join with your Lordships in wishing this Bill a swift passage to the statute book.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.