Lords Sitting of 16 January 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Stansted Airport: Rail Link
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, in view of their Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542), what progress has been made on the decision to construct a rail link to Stansted Airport; and whether they have received details of the study to be undertaken by the British Railways Board in consultation with the British Airports Authority (Cmnd. 9542 para. 530).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the British Railways Board has completed its study, and the Government received an investment proposal in November for a double-track spur from the Liverpool Street-Cambridge line to a new station to be constructed beneath the new airport terminal building. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is now considering the proposal and will reach a decision as soon as possible.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not correct that a more modest scheme is now being considered by the Government, whereas the Inspector stated in his report that a high-quality rail link should be provided? Does the Minister recall that Mr. Ridley, in his Statement in another place on 5th June, said that it may not be economic to provide a rail link? That was seven months ago. Can the Minister be a little more helpful as to when we might expect a reply?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the time it was impossible for us to determine whether the rail link would be economic but, as the noble Baroness points out in her Question, such a rail link had to be financially justified, according to paragraph 530 of the White Paper. Such a scheme was put before us in November and my right honourable friend is giving it urgent attention.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, further on that point is it not correct that no scheme, modest or otherwise, can be available before the 1990s? This will mean the subsidisation of Stansted for at least a further 10 years. Who is to provide that subsidy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right when she says that the scheme will not come into effect until 1990, or just thereafter. However, my understanding is that the scheme is financially justified and must, therefore, stand on its own feet.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that even some of us who oppose the development of Stansted to the extent suggested by the Government nevertheless consider that a rail link is absolutely essential? If finance is the problem, should not the Government assist in the same way as they would in the production of a road infrastructure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Yes, I recall that many noble Lords and Members in another place said that a rail link was essential. One has been presented to us that is financially justified, and my right honourable friend is considering it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on that, because it seems to many of us that this is an important point? Do the Government not accept that if the rail link is not justified on its own financial merits, the expansion of Stansted itself comes under severe question?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I think the two are not related in that way.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a rail link at Stansted will not be very popular unless facilities from the Underground at Liverpool Street station to the main line are improved immensely?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that there is capacity at Liverpool Street station. As the noble Lord will be aware, a Bill has been laid before another place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that British Rail is considering a direct line to Heathrow? If so, does this not confirm also the need for a direct line to Stansted? It seems to be bad housekeeping for the Government to spend millions of pounds on the development of aircraft to save half an hour on a journey and then cause people to travel with great inconvenience to the airport to pick up the plane.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on the Heathrow question without notice. However, I shall write to him.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Government not accept that the absence of a rail link to Stansted will put enormous pressure on the road system in the east of London if the expansion of Stansted goes ahead to the level envisaged?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. If there is not a rail link there will be extra pressure on the roads, but a rail link that is financially justified has been proposed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while it is obvious that Stansted will not be viable without a rail link, it is doubtful that it will be viable with one. Is it not correct that it is proposed to put up the charges for using Stansted to meet the cost of the railway? As

1159
Stansted cannot at the moment attract enough custom, is it likely to attract more if the charges are increased?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, with her great knowledge, more aware than I am of airports and what happens at them. As I understand it, there is an expected increase in the number of passengers at Stansted from about 1 million at the moment to 7 million or 8 million. That should justify it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that British Rail so often tries to evade its social obligations, as it is at present doing with modernising the line on the southern region, which would help the Channel tunnel?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is more advanced than I if he knows that there is a Channel tunnel.

Marine Nature Reserve
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 when they expect to announce a decision on the first marine nature reserve.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council is making good progress. The Government hope to be able to reach a decision on the first statutory marine nature reserve in the summer.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful for that not unexpected reply. Will the noble Lord the Minister give us some idea of what the hold-up is at the moment? For nearly four years now we have been told that the decision on the first marine reserve was more or less imminent. Can the Minister spell out what is wrong? Is it in fact an argument over by-laws or is it something more fundamental than that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there has certainly been an argument over by-laws but I do not think that this is the real reason. The real reason is suspicion generally among the various interests involved. The noble Baroness will remember that during the renotification process of SSSIs on land, which I am happy to say is still continuing and going on apace, there were also initial suspicions and these have taken a very long time to overcome. So it is hardly surprising that the marine suspicions, if I may call them that, have taken just as long, if not longer.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that during the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill on 12th June he said that he thought there was scope for speeding up the procedures leading to the designation of marine nature reserves? Does the noble Lord also recall that at that
1160
same Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady White, said that so far as the island of Skomer was concerned, out of the 10 stages which had to be followed Stage 6 had been reached? That was seven months ago. Can the noble Lord say whether scope has been found for streamlining the procedures and how far the process has advanced as regards Skomer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, last May we said that we should have to reconsider the law if we had not achieved a reserve within 12 to 18 months. That point has not yet been reached. If it is reached then of course we shall do exactly that.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether any steps have been taken since the debates last year in your Lordships' House to speed up the procedures leading to the designation of the marine nature reserve? It has taken nearly four and a half years and we still do not have one. Are the Government doing anything to speed up the process so that it does not take another four and a half years before we have a second marine nature reserve?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one of the things that the Government have been very successful in doing is increasing the grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council—by 25 per cent. in 1984–85 and in the year starting this April by a further 40 per cent. So at the very least funding will not be an inhibitor.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must press the Minister a little further. My understanding is that the suspicions of which he spoke have largely been laid to rest and that fishery interests have now come round to the idea of supporting the provisions in the 1981 legislation. In fact as I understand it what is holding the matter up is a quibble over a by-law between the DoE and the MAFF. Is the problem bureaucracy or can this matter be sorted out? It seems quite wrong that we are being held up because of such a small matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the model by-laws are not finalised next week.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the additional grant-in-aid for the Nature Conservancy Council is very welcome; but is the noble Lord aware that this is likely simply to speed up the process of proposed marine nature reserves being identified by the Nature Conservancy Council? My question, which with respect I do not think the noble Lord answered, is whether the Government are doing anything to speed up the process which a proposed marine nature reserve has to undergo before it is designated.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, inevitably the processes are something that evolve over time and it will obviously take very much longer to realise the first one identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as being of scientific interest. The process is such that second and third ones will take a very much shorter time.

The Woolsack
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 press reports are correct that the contents of the Woolsack need renewal, and if so whether Commonwealth wool producers are being invited to contribute.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, it may be that the House would expect me to declare an interest. I was at first of the opinion that the question whether the Woolsack should be stuffed was a responsibility of the House and not the Government, but I am advised that the PSA is partly responsible, so I think the best thing I can do is to give the facts. The contents of the Woolsack were replenished fully in 1972 and have been regularly maintained since. It currently contains wools from Commonwealth countries, including a small quantity of wool from the Falkland Islands which was added in 1983.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that definitive Coming as it does from the best placed authority possible, it should put an end to the speculation which there has been in the press. Has my noble and learned friend any information on why this story appeared in several reputable newspapers? Could it have been concern that more repairs were needed after the ceiling started to fall upon us, or a deep-seated conviction that this House has a long future before it extending over many years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the latter part of my noble friend's Question. My own understanding of the matter is rather a curious one. When my father occupied the Woolsack, our wise Victorian ancestors had it stuffed with horsehair. This was then thought to be inappropriate and the present arrangement, that it should be filled with wool, was in fact arrived at by general consent. I think those who made the latter arrangement did not quite understand that wool when sat on rapidly becomes felt. The article in question has at the moment two large grooves in it which slope outwards. But I fully agree with my noble friend that on the whole we may expect to leave things as they are for the time being.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if it be the case that a succession of Lord Chancellors have contributed by weightiness, not only in the words that they have uttered but by the impact that they have made on the Woolsack, is it not desirable to maintain the change in tradition made in, I think it was, 1938, when wool was substituted for horsehair? Is wool indeed not a more suitable matter with which the Woolsack should be stuffed, if "stuffed" is not too inelegant a word to apply to so historic and ancient an object? May I add this? When the use of wool is considered I hope that the noble and learned Lord who will have great
1162
influence on these matters will not overlook the claims of the Welsh mountain sheep.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have some reason to think that the United Kingdom in all its parts contributes to the contents of this piece of furniture; and I certainly appreciate the interest of the noble and learned Lord in Wales in this matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, whatever doubts there may be about the contents of the Woolsack and their condition, is it not absolutely clear that there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the qualities of its present occupant?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend must spare my blushes.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is true that many, if not all, of us who sit on the Woolsack leave little impression?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that we all appreciate what the noble Lord does when he is good enough to take the place of the Lord Chancellor.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, which Secretary of State holds the ultimate responsibility for wool gathering?
The Lord Chancellor: Environment, of course, my Lords.

Electricity Charges: Large Industrial Users
3.22 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: 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 is their attitude towards the proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board to reduce the electricity bills of energy-intensive firms.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, discussions between the electricity supply industry and the National Coal Board on the proposed scheme to supply electricity more cheaply to very large industrial users are continuing. The Government's attitude towards the scheme cannot be formulated until the discussions have been completed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that there is an increasing danger of manufacturers who are big users of electricity moving their future activities abroad? Will he use his good offices, if possible, to speed up the process with a positive answer?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord. I can tell him that the Secretary of State for Energy is in touch with the bodies on the progress of the discussions. Although the department is not directly involved in the

1163
discussions, the Secretary of State has made his interest known. We trust that they will not be too long in coming to a conclusion.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, does the noble Lord's Answer imply that the responsibility for electricity's finances is being transferred from the electricity councils and the regional boards to the generating board? Although I endorse my noble friend's contention about a reduction, I think that it would be wrong for the supply industry to be the body coming forward with financial and tariff proposals.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think my Answer made it clear that at present the NCB and the CEGB are in consultation as to how they might achieve a system whereby heavy industrial users—and I emphasise that it is very large industrial users—may be able to obtain their power supplies more cheaply.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the Invergordon aluminium smelter which was sited on purpose near cheap hydro-electric power (or so it was thought) had to be closed because the tariff was the same whether it had local hydro-electric power or not? Does he not agree that there is a strong case for considering that sort of thing?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Invergordon smelter. Indeed, it was in my former constituency and I was very involved in the discussion that took place. But the situation there was slightly different in that the company entered into a complex and complicated agreement at the outset. It was all tied up with power stations which at the time were not built. In effect, it was the Hunterston power station. The point that the noble Lord has raised is not directly relevant to the Question, but the talks are taking place so that large industrial users may plan ahead and, one hopes, obtain electricity at a cheaper rate because of the high volume that they use.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that there is a danger that certain large users will take their manufacturing capacity out of the country and move to where they can get cheaper electricity unless there is some arrangement in this country? Can he also confirm that if there is an agreement between the NCB and the CEGB the Government will put no obstruction in the way?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think I have made it clear that the Secretary of State for Energy is keeping close contact with the two bodies concerned in the talks. They will be well aware of his view during their discussions. The definitive position of the Government cannot be established until an agreement is reached and we are made aware of it. Electricity prices generally in this country compare well with those elsewhere in Europe, except in France, where the consumer benefits very much from low-cost nuclear generation. However, large industrial users, particularly those with high load factors or those not able to join the electricity industry's consumer contracted load scheme, continue to pay more for their electricity
1164
than their counterparts in Western Europe. For that reason, discussions between the NCB and the CEGB are taking place. I am sure that we all wish the talks success in order that what the noble Lord fears about large industrial users moving from this country may not happen.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that if, in order to give preferential prices to heavy users, the electricity industry cannot easily get the money needed, the cost will not be passed on to domestic consumers, and that if any subsidy is required, it will be met by central Government?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can give no such assurance, but I am sure that that point is very much in the minds of those negotiating on behalf of the NCB and the CEGB.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that the House receives a report as to how any money is found by the CEGB if it sets this privileged price?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that it is not within my power to give the noble Lord such an assurance.

Business
3.29 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will repeat, with the leave of the House, a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Popplewell Report. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also announce that the Report stage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during that adjournment the Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order 1985 will be taken.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to the registers of trade marks, designs and patents so as to enable them to be kept otherwise than in documentary form and so as to give the enactments due effect in relation to any portion of a register not kept in documentary form; to make amendments of the Trade Marks Act 1938 in relation to the use of the Royal Arms and other devices, emblems and titles and in relation to the protection of trade marks and service marks for whose protection application has been made overseas; to make other amendments of the Trade Marks Act 1938 in its application to service marks and amendments of other Acts in relation to such marks; and for connected purposes.

1165
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Irving of Dartford and the Lord Gallacher set down for 22nd January shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the said Motion be agreed to?
As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? … To the contrary—
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I at this point ask—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am so sorry. I apologise. I did not see the noble Lord rise. I was not trying to pre-empt his speech.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, it is quite all right. Actually, I was trying to ask the Leader of the House if there is any way in which we can say "Thank you" to servants of the House who are retiring. I know that this will create a precedent but I would be grateful if the noble Viscount would consider it. Many of us learnt this week that the Head Doorkeeper is retiring after many years of service to the House. Many of us, I believe, would like to say thank you for his services and wish him well in his retirement. Very often there are others whose retirement we do not know about until they have left the House of Lords. Is there some way in which we can officially say thank you for their services?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand from the Chief Whip that I am now taking part in a disorderly procedure. This is clearly not something that I ought to do. However, in view of the good point made by the noble Lord, may I say simply that I will look into this question with the appropriate authorities.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Australia Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Australia Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Relations between Australia and the United Kingdom are of the greatest importance. The Bill before this House will confirm the United Kingdom's formal recognition of Australia's status as an independent nation. As such the removal of the old residual constitutional links is not a cause for sadness but rather a cause for satisfaction.
This Bill before your Lordships is at the request and with the consent of the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. This request and consent has been expressed in the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985, enacted in December 1985 by the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia. That legislation was itself enacted with the concurrence of all the states of Australia, expressed in legislation enacted in September and October 1985 by each state legislature. In its passage through the state legislatures and the federal Parliament, the legislation was supported by all Australian political parties.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the remaining constitutional links which still exist between the United Kingdom and the Australian states. It may surprise some noble Lords to know that such links still exist at all. They stem from the way the Commonwealth of Australia was established in 1901 as a federation of what were until then several separate British colonies. On federation certain powers and functions were conferred upon the Commonwealth authorities, but, subject to that, the several states retained their previous powers and functions: in law, in effect, they retained their status as colonies of the United Kingdom. As such, they remained subject to restraints and to control from the United Kingdom which, with the development of Australia to independent statehood, became inappropriate.
The quasi-colonial status of the Australian states meant that, in respect of those states, Her Majesty was Sovereign in right of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in exercising her powers in relation to the states, Her Majesty has hitherto been formally advised by her United Kingdom Ministers. Under the Bill, Her Majesty will continue to be Sovereign in respect of the states, but no longer in right of the United Kingdom. In her Australian capacity, she will be advised—in accordance with the provisions of the Bill—by Australian state Premiers just as, in relation to Australian Commonwealth matters, she is advised by her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. The Bill makes no other change in the position of Her Majesty as Queen of Australia.

1167
The Australian Government's request is made pursuant to Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 which states that,
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof".
The details of the Bill are the result of extensive consultations. These have taken place over a number of years between the Australian state and Commonwealth Governments, and more recently between the Australian Commonwealth and United Kingdom Governments.
Her Majesty approved the proposals in the middle of last year. Since then, all the states and the Commonwealth of Australia have passed legislation in their own legislatures. Royal Assent in Australia was given on 4th December to the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985, passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. The Australian Government's formal request to the United Kingdom Government for the enactment of complementary legislation at Westminster was received soon afterwards in a letter from Mr. Hawke to the Prime Minister. This is the Australia Bill before your Lordships.
The Bill is precisely drafted to mirror exactly the Australian legislation. Briefly, the Bill will remove the British Parliament's power to make laws for Australian states. It will terminate the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom for the government of any Australian state. It will remove certain powers of Her Majesty, as the Queen of the United Kingdom, exercisable on the advice of United Kingdom Ministers, to disallow or to suspend the operation of state laws; it will also remove certain restraints, for example, under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on the legislative powers of Australian states. It will terminate appeals to the Privy Council from state courts, and will deal with the exercise of powers and functions of the Queen in respect of the states including matters affecting the appointment of Governors. The Bill will also make consequential amendments to the Constitution Acts of Queensland and Western Australia.
I should like to turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 terminates the power of the Parliament at Westminster to legislate for the Australian states and makes it clear that Parliament at Westminster can no longer legislate for the Australian Commonwealth or an Australian territory. Thus, the clause achieves the complete legislative independence of Australia from the United Kingdom.
Clause 2 allows each state Parliament to legislate with extra-territorial effect and to exercise those legislative powers which at present the United Kingdom Parliament might exercise in respect of the state. Clause 3 puts an end to restrictions on the legislative powers of state Parliaments in respect of their legislation which might conflict with United Kingdom law. These restrictions flow from the states' quasi-colonial status.
Clause 4 repeals Sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, in so far as they are part of the law of a state. Clause 5 qualifies Sections 2 and
1168
3(2) by making them subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the Commonwealth constitution. Clause 5 also provides that those provisions do not operate so as to give any force or effect to any state Act that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to them or to the Statute of Westminster or to this present Act. Clause 6 requires that state laws continue to be made in such manner and form as may be prescribed by the law of that state.
Clause 7 makes new provisions for the powers and functions of Her Majesty the Queen and Governors in respect of states. Her Majesty's representative in each state continues to be the Governor. It is the Governor alone who will exercise the powers of Her Majesty, except on the appointment or the termination of the appointment of a Governor and at times when the Queen is personally present in the state. On those two matters the Bill provides for the Queen to act on the advice of the Premier of the state concerned, although when she is personally present in a state any such advice to the Queen would only be tendered in accordance with the mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier. This arrangement was agreed between the Australian federal and state authorities and the Palace.
Clause 8 will put an end to existing powers of the Queen, in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom, to disallow state laws, and will prevent any requirement for the operation of state laws to be suspended pending signification of the Queen's pleasure. Clause 9 nullifies the requirement for a state Governor to withhold assent from any Bill duly enacted by the state legislature or to reserve any state Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. Clause 10 provides that, after the commencement of the Act, the United Kingdom Government will have no responsibility for the government of any state.
Clause 11 will terminate appeals to Her Majesty in Council from or in respect of any decision by an Australian court. However, it will not affect an appeal instituted before the commencement of this legislation, or an appeal for which leave has been given before the commencement of the Act. I should perhaps repeat here that this step has the unanimous support of all parties in the states and Commonwealth of Australia.
Clause 12, which supplements Clause 1, expressly repeals Section 4, Section 9(2) and (3) and Section 10(2) of the Statute of Westminster 1931, in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth, of a state or of a territory. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster allows the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for the Commonwealth of Australia with its request and consent, and Section 9(3) specifies that that request and consent is that of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government. Section 9(2) made exceptions to maintain the power of the states to request legislation by Parliament at Westminster; and Section 10(2) allowed the Commonwealth of Australia to revoke its adoption of the Statute of Westminster. In view of Clause 1, these provisions no longer serve any purpose under the new constitutional relationship as established by the present legislation.
Clauses 13 and 14 make amendments to the Constitution Acts of Queensland and Western

1169
Australia respectively. These two states' constitutions are the only ones which include specific provisions relating to the appointment of their Governors, and these clauses are consequential upon the termination of the powers and responsibilities of United Kingdom Ministers in respect of the states. Clause 15 provides that the proposed legislation and the Statute of Westminster, as amended and in force from time to time, in so far as it is part of the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, can be repealed or amended only by the Commonwealth Parliament at the request, or with the concurrence, of the Parliaments of all the states. An exception is made in respect of Commonwealth legislation enacted pursuant to any constitutional alteration made, in accordance with Section 128 of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, after the commencement of the present Act Section 128 sets out the way in which the constitution of the Commonwealth can be amended.
Clauses 16 and 17 provide for matters of interpretation, short title and commencement. It has been agreed between the Commonwealth and state governments that the Australia Acts to be enacted by the Commonwealth and United Kingdom Parliaments should come into operation at the same time.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with the Government in welcoming this Bill. It represents and embodies Australian wishes. All parties in all state legislatures and the Commonwealth Parliament support the proposals outlined in the Bill. As I said at the beginning, legislation has been enacted in all state and Commonwealth legislatures, smoothly and without controversy. It is right that this House should agree to the removal of these residual constitutional links at the request of the representatives of the Australian people. The provisions of this Bill will substitute new arrangements which accurately reflect Australia's well-established status as an independent and sovereign nation. I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Young.)
3.46 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining this Bill to the House in a clear and helpful speech. It comes to us, as she has said, at the request of the Australian Government under the provisions of Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, and it has the support of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament. I have read the Second Reading debate in the Commonwealth Parliament upon their own legislation—that is, the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill and their Australia Bill—which took place on 25th November last. I studied the debate with great interest, and the speeches on both sides of their House left us in no doubt that the desire for this Bill in Australia is unanimous. That is quite understandable. The residual constitutional and legal links are no longer meaningful, save to the extent that Her Majesty the Queen remains involved. We must respect the wishes of the Commonwealth and states Parliaments. By so
1170
doing we shall strengthen rather than weaken the relationship between our two countries.
There is nevertheless, I suspect, in both countries a lingering nostalgia, especially in some quarters, for the old ties. This too is understandable if one recalls the historical background. The six original colonies were settled by people from all parts of the British Isles, not only English and Irish—as we are constantly reminded—but Scots and Welsh as well, as Australian place names such as Perth and New South Wales demonstrate.
The language, customs, traditions—not forgetting the great sporting traditions—and the respect of the Australian people for democratic government and the rule of law are proof of an ineradicable inheritance. If I may be allowed to say so, it is an inheritance to be proud of and to cherish. It is an inheritance to which the four countries of the United Kingdom have made a contribution. Now Australia itself has put, and will continue to put, its own stamp and colour upon it, but the commitment to basic principles will remain. The work of the Britain-Australia Bicentennial Committee—which is now going on—will help to underline this common heritage. Some of us will feel a tinge of regret that the link with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is to go at last. But it was set up in different times. It was the Imperial Court of Appeal, and the ultimate legal authority.
In his Second Reading speech, Mr. Spender, the Opposition spokesman in the Australian Parliament, himself a distinguished lawyer, put the contemporary Australian view very plainly—as is characteristic of most Australians I have met—when he said:
"I have never been able to understand why Australians should think that they would get a more impartial hearing in London than they would in their own High Court. I have never been able to understand the suspicion of the High Court that some highly intelligent Australians have felt in the past. I think that some people still believe that it is better to go to London than to the High Court".
That was Mr. Spender's reaction, and I do not doubt that he spoke for most Australians.
It is also true, I believe, that the Australian legal fraternity have a very high respect for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and we must respond by saying that we think that the Judicial Committee has made an immense contribution to the development of legal standards in Australia as well as in other parts of the Commonwealth. It is equally true that we in this country have the utmost respect for the Australian High Court and concede without question that the function of the Privy Council is no longer essential. I assume, however (and I say this in parenthesis and perhaps the noble Baroness will advise me about it) that the four appeals from Australia which are still pending in the Judicial Committee will in fact proceed to a satisfactory conclusion—at least satisfactory to the successful parties!
Many of the other so-called residual constitutional links have been affected or neutralised by developing constitutional practice in the Commonwealth and in the states in Australia. By passing this Bill today we are merely recognising and accepting the facts of life in Australia.
As the noble Baroness pointed out in her speech, one of the interesting but anachronistic features has been the separate relationship between the states and

1171
the United Kingdom. Her Majesty the Queen is Queen in the Australian states, not as Queen of Australia but, as the noble Baroness, the Minister, has just said, as Queen in right of the United Kingdom, and therefore, technically at least, could be advised on state matters in Australia by United Kingdom Ministers and not by Australian Ministers. That is a curious relic which the Bill now abolishes. It is of course of the first importance to realise that the Queen will in future act as Queen of Australia and be advised by her Australian Ministers, and that is covered by Clause 7 of the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will deal more fully with the legal aspects of the Bill when he comes to wind up later on. However, it becomes apparent that as these residual constitutional and legal functions finally disappear, the role of Her Majesty the Queen in my view assumes an even greater significance. The Sovereign will be the constitutional monarch in Australia as she is here and in certain other countries, and that link, although it is largely undefinable in strict legal terms, helps to preserve the historic relationship between our two countries.
The Bill, especially Clauses 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, terminates the power of this Parliament in Australia. However, Clause 7 holds out the hand and the hope of friendship and mutual trust. This is not the "farewell Australia" Bill, as a few have described it, but a Bill passed in a spirit of co-operation and understanding by two equal and friendly countries which have almost as many things in common as there are miles which separate them.
The world has become a much smaller place and the message of our time is that countries should work ever closer together. I read in the weekend press that an aircraft is already on the drawing board which would get us to Australia in an hour. That would be very agreeable, although I wish that the experts would work on a method of getting me home to Anglesey in somewhat less than six hours!
Finally, on behalf of the Opposition, I am to say that we give the Australia Bill our full support. We shall not seek to amend it and will expedite its passage through this House so that it may take its place as an historic Act on our statute book. Our affectionate greetings and our very best wishes go to the people of the great Commonwealth of Australia; our profound hope is that they will go forward in peace, in prosperity and in freedom. I beg to support the Bill.
3.55 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, we on these Benches also heartily welcome the Bill which is designed to end the formal colonial status of the Australian states by breaking the residual rights of the United Kingdom Parliament over the legislation of the states.
There are only one or two matters arising from the Bill which I should like to mention. I am very glad that, under Clause 11(4), any appeal to Her Majesty in Council which has been presented but not yet heard will not be affected by the Bill. I have only one other question, but I do not know whether it is relevant to the Bill. Do the Government know of any changes regarding the necessity for British citizens having to apply for visas to visit Australia?
1172
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, the Bill can only strengthen the good and friendly relationship which exists between ourselves and Australia. I know that Australia welcomes the Bill and we on these Benches wish it a smooth and pleasant passage.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to add just a very few words on one aspect of the Bill; namely, the judicial aspect, which is dealt with in Clause 11. That clause relates, as the noble Baroness has well explained, to the right of appeal from Australian courts to Her Majesty in Council—in effect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which has existed for 85 years under federation and even longer in relation to some of the colonies which existed before that date. I have been personally and intimately associated with that process for 22 years—a privilege which I greatly esteem. Indeed, that perhaps justifies the few observations which I wish to make.
One can confidently say that from the United Kingdom we have always endeavoured with high priority to provide the best possible judicial service for the Australian legal system. We have endeavoured to see, so far as we can, that our judgments have been attuned to, and in line with, the Australian way of life, the Australian outlook and the Australian ethos. I believe that success in that respect has been fairly general—not perhaps 100 per cent.—and there have been occasions when our Australian friends have not hesitated in their forthright and sometimes colourful language which we expect and enjoy from them, to let us know where we have gone wrong. It has been very good for us and also for the judicial system as a whole.
However, on the whole, I believe we can claim that the process has worked well and smoothly. Recourse to London has continued over the 85 years because we have provided a service which has been quick and cheap—sometimes quicker and cheaper than it would have been had the persons concerned gone wholly through the Australian courts.
Our association over these 85 years has been a triple one. In the first place, it has enabled us to have contact with Australian courts. If it is true, as I believe it is, that the High Court of Australia under Sir Owen Dixon was the pre-eminent court not only in the Commonwealth but in the English-speaking world during the period in which he was Chef Justice, I believe it is equally safe to say that the High Court at all times has been and is a highly distinguished court for which we have the greatest possible respect. Indeed, that is not only true of the High Court, because we have been able to have relations of a very intimate character with the state courts.
It is worth noting that our relations have been not only with the Supreme Courts—the Courts of Appeal in the states—but often with courts of first instance from which curiously there has often been a direct appeal to Her Majesty in Council. During that time we have been able to pool our thinking and our knowledge with a number of very great judges. I would almost say that we have come to regard those judges as our judges, and perhaps reciprocally they may have come to think that we are in some measure their judges.

1173
There has also been an involvement, through Australia, with a number of most interesting cases. Australia is a continent, not a country, with a vast number of problems, conditions and environments which do not exist elsewhere. That has enabled the common law to take cognisance of a number of most fascinating situations and so to enlarge its richness. I shall not trouble your Lordships with a list of cases, but perhaps I may mention just a few which are probably known to some of your Lordships. There is the case of the wagon mound, the case of the fire in Sydney Harbour which was ignited by a floating rag, which enormously developed the law of negligence. There have been cases about drifting sand in the Australian outback, about a great fire in a giant redwood tree and about the drifting of the seeds of prickly pears. How much poorer would the common law have been without these situations. I could go on in the same theme for many minutes. However, it is undoubtedly true that the common law has been greatly enriched through its ability to take under its wing situations from this great country.
Thirdly, there has been the contact which we have had with the Australian Bar. Australian advocates have deservedly always enjoyed a very great reputation, and they have always had outstanding figures who have been willing, mainly but not entirely during the Test Match season (which is our summer and their winter), to come over and give us the benefit of their advocacy. I believe that it is absolutely safe to say that the Bar and the judges here have greatly benefited from that process.
I cannot forbear to mention just one name—that of Sir Garfield Barwick, who was probably the most powerful advocate of our time and who was later Chief Justice. I was able to work with him on a number of cases, both at the Bar and on the Bench. However, there are many other names of international calibre who have been able to come and give us the benefit of their learning and help over the years.
Of course, that is not the end of the British legal association with Australia. I hope that that will carry on for many years. It is the end of a phase, but a phase that I believe we can look back on without shame and with very great joy.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this Bill and particularly to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is so highly regarded in Australia. Any member of the Australian Bar coming to this country is thrilled if he or she has the opportunity to meet this Member of our House. It is claimed that the noble and learned Lord has done more for law in Australia than anyone in Australia.
I believe that in a way it is sad that we shall lose this right of appeal to the Privy Council. When I was at the university stage of my life I remember very clearly that the case brought to oppose bank nationalisation by Garfield Barwick was almost the salvation of Australia. Therefore, I hope that by now they have changed their laws or judicial system to an extent where they can save themselves. However, I believe that just as a mother and children reach a stage where
1174
the children have to be allowed to be independent, to stand on their own feet and to run their own lives, Australia is now in that situation. I hope that in the 30 years during which I have been in this country Australia has gained the great expertise in the law which it obviously believes it has.
I believe that I must speak on this Bill because I am perhaps the only active Australian Member of this House. (I am sorry that I have so little voice, but last week I had no voice and today I have some.) My own title "Gardner of Parkes" comes from the town, Parkes, which was named after Sir Henry Parkes, one of the fathers of federation in Australia, to which my noble friend the Minister referred at the beginning of her speech. Federation took place in 1901. My father and his two brothers were all members of the state Parliament in New South Wales and my father was the acting Premier of New South Wales at the time of the visit of the late Duke of Windsor, who was then Prince of Wales. Therefore, these are very special and precious moments for me when I hear the state Parliaments being given these new rights and powers, and, as a Member of this House, I am very proud to be present at this moment.
Personally, I am delighted, and I am sure that I echo the feeling of every Australian, that the status of the Queen in Australia remains unchanged. That was the one pang that people had in relation to this degree of independence; they were concerned over any threat to the status of the Queen, because her Majesty is dearly loved by the people of Australia. I believe this Bill makes it clear that that will continue.
Earlier speeches this afternoon have referred to how Australia was settled. The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned how it was settled by people from all parts of this country. That is true, but I would remind the noble Lord that they were not all volunteers for the job. However, in 1988 the Australian bicentenary will take place. I am a member of the British-Australian Bicentennial Committee and I believe that this will provide a marvellous opportunity to continue the links which have been in existence for these 200 years. I have no more to say but to welcome this complete legislative independence and the spirit of this Parliament in bringing forward this Bill at the request of the Australian Government and the states.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, perhaps I may add just a few remarks. It is nearly 30 years since I first sat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hearing appeals from Australia, and as I have also visited Australia and know all their judges and their colleagues, first, I should like to associate myself with all that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has said.
This is the end of an era that began many years ago in the colonial time with New South Wales. Sir Robert Menzies once said to me, "You must remember that the first people in Australia were picked by the best judges of England". That is how New South Wales came into existence—with Botany Bay and the like. That colonial era existed until 1900 when the Commonwealth of Australia Act formed the Federal

1175
Government of Australia with the states below it. There was that great independent new nation with all its difficulties of constitution and interstate questions which troubled their courts and which came for decision before us in the Privy Council. The great bank case brought all the best lawyers from Australia to this country to argue it, including Sir Robert Menzies and the like.
I hope and believe that the Judicial Committee did its work to the great satisfaction of all, although there were one or two minor divergencies. However, we also learnt a great deal from the High Court of Australia. I should like to join in the tribute which my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce paid to that High Court. I have known all its Chief Justices, including Sir Owen Dixon, Sir Garfield Barwick and now Sir Harry Gibbs. In its time it has been, and is, as good a supreme tribunal as any other—perhaps better; it is at least equal to any other the whole world over. We regarded its judgments as of great value in our common law, too—common law which I hope we shall continue to develop mutually and in parallel.
The time came, and it must be recognised, when it was no longer appropriate for the courts of the states of Australia ever more to have recourse to the Privy Council here, when they had this great High Court of Australia to deal with their questions. Therefore, I am sure we would all join with all parties in Australia in saying that the time has come—it has come today—for that last remaining judicial link to be severed. We welcome the severance and we wish the High Court of Australia well in future times, hoping we shall keep the common law together as we did in the past.
There is this great residual satisfaction that the Queen here—the Queen of England; the Queen of the United Kingdom, if you please—the Queen of Australia there, is the link which remains. This is the link which will still bind us together, and we hope that this link will continue forever. We wish this new constitution under the new Australia Act well.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join in the welcome given to this Bill. I am a Member of the Anglo-Anzac Group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I must confess that I have yet to visit Australia. I suppose I am one of the few people who have been to New Zealand but not to Australia, but that is a pleasure to come. My wife was recently in Australia where she had a warm welcome, and a close member of my family works in Australia at the present time.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister how the whole matter of work permits and immigration rules will apply under the new legislation? Are there likely to be any changes? Bearing in mind the importance of trade nowadays and business links, one hopes that the new legislation will encourage relations of this kind still further.
My other point was made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and that is the position of the Royal Family. It is encouraging to know that the status of the Royal Family remains, particularly in view of the fact that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales
1176
spent a distinguished period of time at Geelong Grammar School; and one hopes that members of the Royal Family will visit Australia in future as much as possible. With those few words, I warmly welcome this Bill.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I come to praise Australia, not to bury her. I welcome this Bill personally, and I also welcome it as a member of the Cook Society. In case that society may not be well known to your Lordships, I would explain that it is not named after Thomas Cook the tourist, but Captain Cook the explorer. It has about 80 members in this country whose duty it is to promote Anglo-Australian relations at a high level. It has its counterparts in Sydney and Melbourne. I have been specially charged by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to apologise because he is not here today to speak on this Second Reading, as he is one of the many people who have Australia in their hearts and therefore belong to the Cook Society.
As one who has made many trips to Australia and whose business there was founded in 1898, which is quite a long time ago in the history of that country, I thought I would not discuss the legalities of the Bill but delve down and show your Lordships the human issues which have brought it about, and also perhaps the course that we ought to take after the Bill becomes an Act.
The difficulty in Australia has always been to reconcile its history with its geography. That may sound a bit strange to us living in an island where the history and geography are much the same. But think what a remarkable thing it was when Australia experienced what had happened in the United States of America, and there was this great immigration in the early part of the peace which followed the last World War. Of course, there were British people who went there, but the first flow was from Estonia and Lithuania. They were called "the Balts" in Australia. Then there were the Greeks and the Italians, who knew when they left their own country that they were going to another country with some sunshine. Then there were the Germans, and of course latterly immigrants from South-East Asia.
These people have altered the habits of a lifetime in Australia. I saw it for myself. That business of having to get into a hotel (which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will remember) by six o'clock if you wanted your tea; that departure from your office at five o'clock to get to the pub before it closed at six, commonly known as the six o'clock swill—they have all gone out of the window. Restaurants sprang up; beer gardens sprang up; and ladies were allowed into pubs, which was a novel idea in Australia.
At first there was antipathy by the Australians as they saw their immigrants making money by keeping open much longer hours than the Australians had been accustomed to. But in the end—and I also saw this happening—there was a recognition of the worth of these immigrants and the influence they had brought to bear on the Australian habits of a lifetime. So much so that it was quite difficult at one time to find in Sydney any person whose four grandparents were born in Australia. But I think it did a lot of good all round.

1177
So much for the history side. But what about the geography? A wise man said recently:
"Even if Britain remains to Australia an important and friendly power"—
as I hope it does—
"there are four other states which are more directly relevant to her well-being and peace of mind—Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Japan and the United States of America".
Does that mean that Australia is turning her back on Europe and the United Kingdom? If it was so it would be ironical, because that is what they thought we were doing when we joined the European Economic Community. Sir Robert Menzies, when he came to the first Cook Society meeting in Australia, made that point at just about the time when we were discussing the European Economic Community. He said, "Always remember that it is not the European Economic Community at all. Right in its very heart it is a European political community, and it is the one means of ensuring that no European country will make war upon another". It may well be, therefore, that if there is some justice in this remark about the ties with South-East Asia the same thought may well mature there, and it will be Australia which will be the stabilising influence in that part of the world.
One last point on communications. In these last 50 years I have seen how that country has been opened up by the communications in Australia itself. Australians who had never seen Darwin or Perth if they happened to live in Sydney—and the reverse applied—suddenly found how easy it was to get about the country. They brought a new look which was reflected in their art, their drama, and their literature. A reference was made by a noble Lord to communications outside Australia and the possibility of the development of a fast aeroplane. It certainly would be a great change from the first aeroplane that I caught. It took eight days to get by flying-boat from here to Sydney. As he rightly said, the world is getting smaller, and in its smallness Australia has become a power in the world. When we look back at the influence it has had on the Commonwealth we must be very grateful for the help we have received, not only in the First World War and the Second World War but through its more subtle influences in relation to India, Zimbabwe and South Africa.
So the time has come to cut the apron strings. Here I reflect a little on what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said. Let me illustrate what I hope will happen by thinking of what happens in one's own home. When the children grow up and get married, or go away to seek work elsewhere, one does not say "That's that" and forget all about them. You have to redouble your efforts to make sure that the ties between you and them are maintained. It is in their interests as well as your own that these ties should be maintained. This is trouble and expense, and if your Lordships do not believe me you may pay my telephone bill! That is the one way that my wife and myself keep in touch with our children, wherever they are; and that includes Australia. How important it is for us to make sure that the same thing takes place after this Bill has become an Act.
I have not taken the trouble—perhaps I should have done—to find out how many Prime Ministers or Cabinet Ministers from this country have ever been to
1178
Australia, but the need is there. The only people about whom one can make no reproach is the Royal Family, because they have realised how important it is to keep this Commonwealth together. We must not think, "What can Australia do for us?" We must think of what we can do for Australia. In that way I am sure we shall find progress for both our countries. I support the Bill.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is an historic and in some ways a moving occasion in that the residual constitutional links that remain between the United Kingdom and the Australian states are now to be broken. Those of us who have links with Australia—and most of those who have spoken have shown how emotional they feel about this—will know that this is a moving occasion. I remember with happiness many of the visits I have made to Australia and the friendships I have formed there: their vigour, their warmth and their humour. Sir Robert Menzies was perhaps a classic example. I remember attending the Commonwealth Law Conference in Sydney in 1965, which he opened. Judges from this country were present—the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and others, all enrobed—and he said that he attended the church service that morning before the opening of the conference. He said, "I expected to meet the odour of sanctity. All I met was the smell of mothballs". That was typical of his vigour and humour.
I am delighted today that two notable and learned Lords of Appeal have taken part in this debate. It is not a debate; it is a universal acclamation of approval. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has made an outstanding contribution to the law. His contribution today will give particular joy to our Australian friends, especially those on the Bench and at the Bar. He has played a notable part in the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That has been a two-way process, as has been said by many of the speakers. The Australians have contributed much, whether as judges or as lawyers, whether as soldiers or as statesmen; and we, for our part, have made the best contribution that we can.
On the willingness of the Australians to make sacrifice, one can only think by way of example of the fact that Gallipoli is forever engraved on the hearts of the British people. When one goes over to the more mundane but nevertheless important field of the law, one is reminded, as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, of the contribution of great judges like Sir Owen Dixon. Their contribution, their participation in the development of the common law, has been great. What is very touching and moving from the British end is the signal honour that has been paid to the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council over the years by the willingness of the Australians to regard it as the ultimate court of resort for the Australian courts. It is a great tribute to their quality, but it is a process in which the Australian judges and Bar have played their notable parts.
The happy feature of today's debate, unlike that on the Canada Bill, is that this Bill is wholly uncontroversial and is welcomed without any kind of inhibition or reserve. The Canada Act was a much more difficult operation. As your Lordships will

1179
remember, it sought to repatriate the Canadian constitution, to amend substantially that constitution by the addition of a Canadian charter of rights and to repeal the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for Canada. That is perhaps a formal step rather like that provision in this Bill. But the Canada Act was a special case. Happily this Bill comes with universal approval both from Australia and, as we have seen in the course of this debate, from the people of Britain, from the House of Lords, in all its aspects.
We welcome the Bill and we wish every happiness and enjoyment of the fact that the final judicial decisions in Australia now go to Australians themselves and are theirs by right. I welcome the Bill and wish Godspeed to the Australian people.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon in this short but I believe very important debate on the Australia Bill. I am particularly grateful for the wholehearted support given by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as well as that from the noble Earl, Lord Grey. It represents the views of all parts of political life in this country. I think we would all agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he said that although we all wholeheartedly support the Bill we feel a tinge of nostalgia at the same time. This has been reflected in the words spoken in today's debate. Indeed it is the end of an era; nevertheless it is an important step and one that we all welcome, because it reflects the rightful relationship between two important, equal and independent countries.
A number of questions have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me to confirm the position of those people who currently have appeals before the Privy Council. I am glad to confirm that there are now five appeals pending in January 1986: two from New South Wales, one from Queensland and two from Western Australia. But, as I indicated earlier, Clause 11 of the Bill provides that those appeals received but not disposed of will be dealt with by the Privy Council as would have been the case if this legislation was not being enacted.
The noble Earl, Lord Grey, asked me a question about visas and perhaps I can confirm to him that the legislation before the House in no way affects visas, which are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government; and I should like to confirm to my noble friend Lord Auckland that in fact the same applies to work permits and to immigration rules. They are not in any way affected because they are the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I am sure that we all listened with enormous interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, had to say, and indeed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. They reflected on a system which has existed now for 85 years. They were able to illustrate the work with what I am sure we all found to have been a fascinating series of reflections and remembrances of cases heard in the past. They quite rightly gave a rather rich addition to the explanation of this constitutional and, at times, technical Bill to fill us in with the
1180
background of what it means both in this country and in Australia.
My noble friend Lady Gardner added a most interesting personal recollection to the debate and illustrated once again the fact that your Lordships' House always contributes something in particular when she was able to say that she is a daughter of a state premier and therefore was brought up in a world in which all these important constitutional matters were talked of at home as well as in the wider political world. We also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, speaking on behalf of the Cook Society, who gave us again most interesting reflections both on the history of Australia and particularly on the modern changes which have come in its society with the great increase of immigration from many parts of Europe and also the effect of geography and modern history on Australian political thinking and the changes which have come to the United Kingdom with our accession in Europe.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, described this as a moving occasion and I think that I would entirely agree with him. It is a Bill before the House which has universal approval, which has the approval of all your Lordships. It reflects the reality that Australia is a modern and independent nation and I am very glad that the Bill has received the support and the goodwill that it has had.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Popplewell Final Report
4.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Popplewell Report which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Final Report of the Inquiry into Safety and Control at Sports Grounds under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Popplewell which was published today. The House will recall that the inquiry was established following the fire at Bradford City football ground and the events at Birmingham City on 11th May 1985.
"Now that the inquiry's work is completed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I renew the Government's gratitude to the chairman and his two assessors for the speed and conscientiousness with which they have discharged their difficult task. In addition to dealing with the events at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels on 29th May and discussing the causes of hooliganism, the final report makes its recommendations on, separately, crowd safety and crowd control.
"On crowd control, there are a number of recommendations about the maintenance of order at football grounds: wider powers of police search and arrest; a new offence of disorderly conduct at sports grounds, and a review of the recent alcohol legislation as it applies to executive boxes.

1181
Continued progress with membership schemes is also recommended.
"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act which came into force on 1st January has already extended the police powers of search and of arrest in ways which will help them deal with troublemakers at football grounds. I shall examine Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendations for further powers when we see how the new Act works in practice.
"On disorderly conduct, the Public Order Bill now before the House seeks to create a new offence which will cover hooliganism in football grounds as elsewhere. I shall consider carefully the recommendation for a wider offence when we see how the offence in the Bill works in practice.
"The Government has already taken a number of steps to deal with forms of misconduct about which Mr. Justice Popplewell expresses particular concern. The Public Order Bill seeks to implement a recommendation in his interim report that the possession of smoke bombs and similar devices at sports grounds be made an offence. We have taken action to ban some other items which may be used as missiles. The alcohol legislation which was passed in the summer makes it an offence to be in possession of a drinks can or bottle in any area of the grounds from which the pitch may be viewed directly.
"During the parliamentary proceedings representations were made about the effect on the revenue which clubs derive from executive boxes. The Government undertook to monitor the situation, and I have received some information from the Football League and representations from a number of right honourable and honourable Members. I have asked for more information from the football authorities and will wish to consider that carefully, in the light of the inquiry's recommendation, before deciding whether to allow some relaxation of the controls on alcohol in executive boxes. I shall report my conclusions to the House while the Public Order Bill is before Parliament.
"On membership cards, I fully endorse Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendation. The Public Order Bill contains provisions to enable the courts to ban convicted football hooligans from attending matches. This shows our determination to do what we can to keep troublemakers away from football grounds, and to restore the good name of British football. It needs to be matched by equally determined action by the football clubs and the football authorities. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has emphasised to them the value of an effective membership card system. The football authorities have made some progress on this. In the light of the exclusion order scheme in the Public Order Bill, I hope that they will now redouble their efforts.
"I turn to crowd safety. We accept the need to strengthen urgently the measures already announced by and taken following my predecessor's Statements on 13th May and 24th July.
"We accept the recommendation that all sports grounds and sports stadia in England and Wales
1182
with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators and where Association Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and cricket are played which are not already designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act should be so designated. Consultations will begin immediately with the sports authorities and organisations concerned with a view to introducing the necessary orders as quickly as possible, but in any event by the summer of this year.
"In Scotland my right honourable friend intends to introduce similarly, as soon as practicable, an order designating stadia of clubs with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators in the first and second divisions of the Scottish Football League.
"We accept the principle of the recommendations that safety controls should be extended to all sports grounds and stadia with stands for over 500 spectators, and to indoor sports facilities with accommodation for over 500 spectators where adequate controls do not already exist. We need more facts. Present centrally-held information is limited to stadia and grounds with accommodation for 5,000 or more, and indoor premises with an overall capacity of more than 1,000. The first step will be to establish the full practical effects of these recommendations. All relevant local and fire authorities in England, Wales and Scotland are to be invited to inspect all such stands and premises not previously inspected and report upon them to my right honourable friend and myself. Powers are immediately available under both the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and the Fire Precautions Act to deal with any exceptional hazard which might be found in the course of the inspections. Similarly, chief fire officers and firemasters will be invited to keep under review the places they inspected under previous initiatives last year, with the object of maintaining safety standards at those places.
"When we have considered these inspections we shall quickly issue a consultative document and propose ways of achieving the objectives of the inquiry's final report, fitting this into the review already under way on the future of the Fire Precautions Act. Further legislation may well prove necessary. There will be no avoidance risk meanwhile because any necessary emergency action can be taken under existing powers.
"So far, the figures this season show a marked improvement in the number of arrests and ejections from football grounds. Our measures against hooliganism should have a cumulative effect. But it is too soon to be satisfied. We have to deal not only with hooliganism but with safety; not only with football grounds but with sports grounds in general. Thanks in large part to Mr. Justice Popplewell, I believe we are on the right track".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful, as always, to the noble Lord the Minister for having repeated this Statement; and may I immediately from these Benches echo the words of gratitude that he so rightly expressed in that Statement to Mr. Justice Popplewell and to the two assessors for this, their final report. Many of us remember the

1183
debate which took place on the interim Statement on 24th July last, when we equally expressed our gratitude for the speed with which that interim report had been prepared.
At once may I say, on behalf of my noble friends, that any recommendations in regard to safety quite obviously, in principle, meet with our approval, as do the recommendations made in the final report and referred to in the Statement. The only thing one wonders from a practical point of view, bearing in mind that the arena now includes not only football grounds but will also include cricket grounds, rugby football grounds and other sports grounds, is where the money is coming from. It is all very well to lay down regulations and to recommend them, but not without some practical consideration being given to how those regulations are going to be implemented, unless we are going to have sports grounds, open and interior grounds, shut down by virtue of the fact that we have carelessly legislated. I say "carelessly" because it is lacking in care when one legislates without regard to the practical conclusions of observing that legislation. And, of course, these sports, other than football, have not the benefit of the FGIT, which is paid such compliments in the report—and rightly so, if I may say so.
If I may move to something that did concern us when we were discussing the interim report, it was the attention given by Mr. Justice Popplewell to an obscenity that was occurring far too often on our football grounds: that is, the chanting of racial abuse. He said that consideration was going to be given by him to this matter with a view to the recommendation of some criminal offence which might cover it, and which would be an addition to our criminal law. I wonder whether the Government believe that this is covered by Clause 19 of the Public Order Bill. If it is not, do they intend to add another clause to that Bill to cover this particularly outrageous offence?
4.45 p.m.
Mention was made briefly of executive boxes and the further review that might take place in regard to the limitations placed on them under what I believe we have called our "alcohol legislation", which was rushed through both Houses (and rightly so) before the start of the last season. Perhaps I may express what is purely a personal point of view, because I believe there is no political policy in regard to this matter. May I merely plead that the Government in considering this matter—and the noble Lord the Minister, in the Statement, has said that this will be referred to again when we come to consider the Public Order Bill—should seriously consider the social effects and possible discord that can be created when some humble folk see people not quite so humble able to imbibe alcohol at leisure, and as frequently as they like, when they are prohibited from doing so. Again if I may express a personal point of view, I continue to wonder (though this may be a personal eccentricity) at those who so love football that they turn up for a game and yet feel they cannot be expected to turn up to enjoy that football game unless alcohol is supplied. However, I repeat, that may be a personal eccentricity of my own.
1184
No mention has been made of closed circuit television. This is an essential safeguard, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us if its use has really increased at the rate he would expect if we are to have their most useful protection. My information is that only about one-fifth of our grounds have it, and obviously that would not appear to be very adequate.
My final points are directed to matters which are not referred to in the Statement but which I believe would have your Lordships' great interest. On page 50 of the report Mr. Justice Popplewell calls attention to the fact that the extent of hooliganism is obviously a matter of great importance if we are properly to try to regulate and consider it. He says at paragraph 5.22 on page 51:
"It might have been thought that [as] this violence has been a problem for football clubs for many years the first thing the football authorities would have done would have been to seek to establish the extent of it. Far from it."
He goes on to say:
"Presently at every Football League match in England and Wales there is an observer appointed by the Football League to assess and report on the performance of the referee."
He states that there is no such observation or keeping of records in regard to matters of violence. Lastly, he says this at paragraph 5.25:
"It is still vitally important that the police and the clubs should get together so that henceforth it is possible for the clubs to obtain statistics on the number of arrests and the nature of the offences which occur on their property."
My question to the Minister is: what are the Government proposing to do to carry out that recommendation, which one imagines could be carried out immediately?
My last observation—and I promise this is the last one—is in reference to a most interesting discussion in this report of the characteristics of the hooligan. That occurs at pages 52 to 55. I am going to summarise it by saying that in the description of the new hooligan we are given a completely new type, which is certainly not in the general understanding of the man-in-the-street as to the type of person we are dealing with.
The report states that all too often—and it cites a recent case that came before the Central Criminal Court—one is not dealing at all with working-class lads or working-class men. One is dealing with people who have quite a lot of money, people who have had quite a bit of education and culture, people who indeed are holding down responsible jobs. Yet this virus of absolute senseless violence and hooliganism appears to be running through their veins. One is left with a question mark. Have we in looking at Popplewell really got to the bottom of what is a social problem of great importance in this time?
I know that it has been existent before. We all know that. Violence is not new to 1986. But this type of worthless, needless vandalism and violence seems to be an obsession of our age. Have we really tackled it? Ought it not to have a very much deeper analysis than we have given it so far? We are all grateful that the Statement ended with a note of optimism that the numbers of incidents at football grounds appear to have diminished. May that tendency continue.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I, too, should like to express appreciation to the Minister for his Statement this afternoon, and to

1185
join with all Members of the House in expressing our thanks to Mr. Justice Popplewell for what is a reasonable, cautious Statement. I very much welcome the Government's reaction to this exhaustive examination. I know that it is easy to react in panic to the terrible events in Belgium and the tragedy of the Bradford fire in the way that the public demand something must be done. I am glad that we have resisted the temptation of panic legislation and that we are giving careful consideration to the document before us. Our purpose must be to restore the place of football and other sports as part of our national life, where people may go and enjoy the excitement and pleasure of watching a great sporting event without fear. That is the purpose to which the Popplewell Report tries to address itself, and as I said we very much welcome the Government's reaction to its recommendations.
There are two areas which have been mentioned in earlier discussions. I apologise for the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has a very keen interest in these matters and who normally speaks on them from these Benches. On the question of membership cards, I am glad that that aspect is not to be pressed but is to receive further consideration. Your Lordships may recall that there was an earlier suggestion that membership cards should be required, which would if not ban, at least limit the number of supporters attending an away game. This could have disastrous consequences for smaller clubs, which depend very much on the occasional visits of Rangers and Celtic, with their large support, in order to boost their income. We should be very careful about any possibility of imposing that kind of restriction.
The question of executive boxes is another difficult and controversial area. As has been said this afternoon, it is rather socially divisive that the chap down on the terraces cannot have his beer, but the chap in the executive club can have his champagne. But we are not talking about that social divisiveness; we are talking about the control of trouble at football grounds. That is the major issue and I doubt whether that social distinction is contributory to trouble at football grounds. I would also keep in mind that many football clubs are now dependent on this form of revenue in order to keep them in existence. If your Lordships look at the events at Birmingham City and at some of the other clubs with declining fortunes, you will realise how important the executive boxes might be to their survival.
I was interested in the reference to the control of smoke bombs and other things. This is an area where harmonisation with EC legislation should be introduced, because the only evidence of these things has always been at European football grounds. May I ask, as has the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: how is this to be financed? We are talking about imposing on clubs and local authorities very considerable responsibilities. Where is the money coming from in order to do this? Perhaps a percentage on large transfer fees might be an appropriate source of some revenue in order to assist. Stewards have to be trained. Where will the money come from for the training of stewards? Many of the clubs are very hard-pressed at the moment and we must recognise that in imposing new burdens on these clubs we may be endangering their future existence.
1186
The Statement indicates that there have been fewer arrests and disturbances, and perhaps the Minister will at some stage give us some information in that regard. May I say from the Scottish experience in this regard, that Scottish teams are still playing and are acceptable in international and European competitions, largely because earlier legislation on the control of alcohol has substantially reduced disturbances at Scottish football matches and so, despite their liking for the national beverage, the Scots retain respectability in international football at the moment. I was delighted to read that Mr. Justice Popplewell drew substantially on the experience of Scotland in this regard.
I was delighted, too, that the Minister assured us that in any substantial changes which are planned in this area there will be full consultation with the Football Association, with the people who have to run the industry and with the local authorities who have direct experience of the problems that are addressed in the Popplewell document.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in reply to both noble Lords opposite, may I say that I am grateful to them for their kind reception of this Statement. Both noble Lords have raised the question of the financial penalties which clubs will undergo. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, and the fact that safety is paramount will be recognised by those clubs, too. Obviously those measures have to be taken. Certainly, the owners or occupiers of sports venues of whatever sort must take responsibility for ensuring the safety of their customers, and they too must meet the costs of safety improvements.
Of course, the Government will carefully consider any representations made to them by individual sports, but sports governing bodies are independent concerns and have their own sources of income. Governing bodies of sports derive income from a variety of different sources—membership fees, subscriptions, television, commercial sponsorship, trading activities, admission charges, and so on. Many also receive grant-aid from the sports councils for administration and general sports development. Additional income for safety improvement work could be generated through more commercial sponsorship, increases in membership fees, and so on, which I have described. Indeed, local authorities may even be willing to consider assistance. That has certainly happened at some football grounds already designated.
5 p.m.
There is also the question of the sports councils offering additional help. They have already given substantial financial assistance to governing bodies of sports. When approached, the sports councils will continue to advise and discuss with clubs the financing of particular projects. However, any financial help from councils over and above their normal grant-aid to governing bodies is, I fear, somewhat unlikely. I recognise the concern that both noble Lords have expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke about one of the recommendations in the report concerning racist chanting and the relevance of the Public Order Bill. The Public Order Bill will extend the existing offence

1187
of incitement to stir up racial hatred to conduct intended to do so. At present the offence is confined to conduct likely to do so. That is obviously the great difference. Consequently, where a person at a football match uses words that are threatening, abusive or insulting and which are intended or likely to stir up racial hatred he will be committing an offence.
It would be difficult to go further so as to create a wider offence confined to football matches. Any general offence would be extremely difficult to enforce effectively. There seems to me to be some difficulty in the logic of confining such an offence just to football grounds, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Mishcon, both referred to the matter concerning executive boxes and the financial impact. I noted with interest the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and not for the first time because he expressed similar views when we discussed this matter in the summer—and those of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. During the passage of the alcohol legislation it was suggested by the football organisations that clubs derived a total of £4 million a year from the leasing of executive boxes. Many boxes are leased on an annual or three-yearly basis and therefore actual losses may not be incurred for some time.
At the end of October, the Football League sent the Government some information that indicated that some clubs estimated or projected a considerable turnover in box holders when their leases expired, with a consequent loss of revenue if the boxes could not be relet. At that stage the alcohol legislation had been in force for fewer than three months. My honourable friend the Minister of State asked for further information covering a longer period. We still await that further information. In waiting for it, I note the views expressed by both noble Lords this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised the question of statistics about football hooliganism during the present season. I do not have any national statistics but in the Metropolitan Police District in the period up to 11th January, the number of ejections and arrests had fallen from 2,652 last season to 1,470 this season. That is a fall of 44 per cent. At the same time there has been a fall in attendances of 13 per cent.
In Greater Manchester in the period up to 1st December there was an increase in attendances of 6·4 per cent. but a decrease of 56 per cent. in the number of arrests and ejections. I am sure your Lordships will agree that those are encouraging figures. I have more statistics that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but perhaps not at this time.
As to the more general question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in connection with the report itself and the importance of collecting statistics, from this season the police will be completing a report on every league fixture, giving full details of incidents, arrests, police tactics, etc. Those reports will be sent to the force of the visiting team. They will be an excellent source of centralised data on the national picture. I hope that the noble Lord finds that information encouraging.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed I do, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord the Minister for it. The report emphasises the need for co-operation between the police and football authorities, which presumably has not existed up until now. Will the noble Lord the Minister encourage that kind of co-operation?
Lord Glenarthur: Certainly, my Lords. Every step will be taken to encourage such co-operation; I give the noble Lord that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked also about closed circuit television. Of the 42 clubs in the first and second divisions of the Football League, I understand that 25 of them have now installed closed circuit television, and that nine of the 10 clubs in the Scottish premier division have done so or are having closed circuit television installed. That is part of the football trust programme to equip initially all clubs in those three divisions with closed circuit television. In addition, there are the three Home Office "hoolivans", which are mobile photographic vehicles. The information I have is that while we have not yet installed all of them, those who are involved are pleased with the way in which this matter is progressing. We are encouraged by that and I hope that the noble Lord is as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised the question of membership cards. The Football League has supported the development of membership card schemes by issuing guidelines to clubs on the introduction of partial schemes covering at least 50 per cent. of ground capacities. That is a welcome first step, as Mr. Justice Popplewell remarks in his report. The football authorities are in no doubt about the value that the Government attach to membership cards as an integral part of a package of measures designed to combat hooliganism. In the light of the exclusion orders scheme set out in the Public Order Bill, the Government are looking to the league and the clubs to take more positive action to achieve quicker progress in line with Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendations.
There are of course practical difficulties—which I believe is what concerns the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—including the problem of checking cards held by large numbers of people trying to pass through turnstiles in a short period. Membership cards are certainly not a panacea but we believe they can make a useful contribution, together with exclusion orders and closed circuit television, in keeping troublemakers out of football grounds. With determination and commitment, perhaps some of the practical difficulties can be overcome. Certainly the advantages of keeping troublemakers out of football grounds are obvious to us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the whole chapter dealing with hooliganism. The police and all those concerned are of course very alive to the worrying trend that the noble Lord described; the shift from the old-style hooligan to the more sophisticated hooligan, which is so admirably described in the particular chapter of the report to which the noble Lord referred. Regarding analysis, we must continue to monitor the situation closely. The police are very alive to that need and will continue to be so.

1189
I end where the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, began; by saying that it behoves us all to do everything that we can to try to rid the game of football—and perhaps other games if the situation starts to turn that way—of the unfortunate element that has made football so miserable for those who wish to enjoy it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in expressing thanks to Mr. Justice Popplewell for the very detailed report that he has presented. As one who was invited to give evidence, and who did so, I have to part company with my colleague on the Front Bench in respect of his observations concerning executive boxes.
The Minister may recall that there was support from all parts of this House last July for the amendment I moved that would have left the licensing of executive boxes as a matter to be dealt with by local licensing magistrates under the normal and historic procedure. Fifty-five noble Lords took the same view on that particular day, which is a not inconsiderable number.
I should like briefly to refer to what Mr. Justice Popplewell said about those boxes. They cannot be treated as trivia when looking at them in total and in regard to the question of financing football. Mr. Justice Popplewell devotes a huge paragraph to the subject. It is not just a case of social distinction because he blows that argument sky high. He does not consider that it is any part of the argument. He states:
"The effect of the Act in relation to income for a number of clubs has been little short of disastrous. It has been particularly so in some of the most forward looking clubs who have spent a great deal of money in providing better facilities for their spectators, which should be encouraged. It is now clear that a good deal of expensive improvement works at football clubs can only be supported if boxes of one sort or another are operating. It is now too late to suggest that the provision of business and dining facilities has no part in the football world. It is now part of business. And business is needed to support football. Families, too, are using these facilities and their support is essential to a well run club and needs to be encouraged".
Mr. Justice Popplewell visited one game at Old Trafford and saw things for himself. That club will lose a minimum of over £500,000 annually. We are not talking about a static industry; it is a growth industry. Mr. Justice Popplewell ended with this very brief paragraph:
"Now that the Act has been imposed for a short time, and its effects can be seen, it must be sensible to have another look at Section 3(3) to see whether it really is a necessary provision. I therefore recommend that the provisions of Section 3(3) be reviewed in relation to the executive boxes".
It is only right to assume that the section is totally unnecessary and that it has gone too far. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: will he urge the Home Secretary to view this issue as a matter of urgency because of the finances involved? It is not only affecting the Manchester Uniteds and Tottenham Hotspurs in football but very adversely affecting some of the less wealthy clubs which might well go out of existence.
Finally, the Minister will recall that when the interim report was placed before your Lordships' House I asked whether there would be an opportunity to debate the final report because of all that was involved. We have had almost a mini-debate today but I would have preferred it to be brief and to have dealt with this matter in a full day's debate. I think the Minister almost gave an undertaking on the previous
1190
occasion that there would be such a debate on this subject. Will he consider this suggestion and take it to the people concerned?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I have already said on the question of executive boxes. I know that the noble Lord has a powerful concern about this subject. He expressed it very clearly and admirably in the summer. As I said, we await further information. I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of all concerned and I can assure him that they will be taken into account.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have to say briefly that there is no doubt in what Mr Justice Popplewell is saying concerning the tremendous and adverse effects being experienced. How long must we wait and how much money will be lost before something is done?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note those points and I am sure my right honourable friend will do so, too. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asks about a debate. That, of course, I cannot answer. It is a matter for the usual channels. Certainly I did not promise a debate when I spoke at the interim report stage.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Regulated procedures]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
("except that students at universities studying physiological sciences, preclinical medical students and preclinical veterinary students may, under direct supervision of personally licensed instructors authorized by an appropriate project licence, perform the procedures authorized in that project licence on decerebrate mammalian preparations.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which would have placed the decerebrate animal outside the operation of the proposed Bill as, in fact, such an animal is outside the 1876 Act at present. I accept that my argument on that occasion carried insufficient weight but I said that I was concerned about the effect of the Bill on teaching at universities.
My present purpose is limited. It is to make possible the teaching of some basic techniques in physiology to students at university who are studying physiology, and medical students and veterinary students. There is, of course, increasing scope for alternative methods in such teaching with the use of videos, and so on, which is being undertaken. However, it is important that such students can carry out limited exercises—strictly limited with a proper concern for the number of animals involved—on living animals and decerebrate mammals. Rabbits have usually been used for this purpose. These exercises form an important part of their experience and training.
It is true that under this Bill, with an appropriate project licence, a university student could use a decerebrate mammal but it would be at a proposed cost, I gather, of some £60 for a personal licence. A class of, say, 200 students would therefore cost £12,000 in personal licences. In these days of stringency and constrained resources few universities will be able to find such sums.
I believe that there are two solutions to this problem, as I see it. One is to adopt the amendment I have tabled and the other to agree that where a university class is concerned an inclusive personal licence can be issued containing a list of the names of the students involved at, one would hope, a reduced cost. In either case such a class would, of course, be directly supervised by experienced holders of personal licences and be authorised by an appropriate project licence covering the exercises involved in the class.
I repeat what I said in Committee. A decerebrate animal is an insentient animal that does not experience pain or suffering; nor is it able to recover the ability of experiencing pain or suffering. It is my belief that student exercises have a very real value in the training of young doctors and vets. My own experience of such classes is that they are carried out with all proper seriousness and concern on the part of both the staff and the students. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite understand the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has expressed about the cost to universities and colleges where each individual in quite large classes of students has to obtain personal licences in order to carry out a small number of procedures. Even if only one procedure is carried out during a whole year, the full fee for a personal licensee will be chargeable to the university or college in respect of each student so licensed.
I hope that I can go some way to reassuring the noble Lord on this point. The Home Office is making arrangements for a transfer of the appropriate part of the planned cost of animal experiment inspection to the Department of Education and Science and other appropriate departments so that they will be in a position to make adjustments to grants-in-aid to universities, colleges and other Government-funded research organisations for the cost of fees imposed as a result of this Bill. The detailed arrangements are still in the course of completion but our objective is to ensure that universities, colleges and the other bodies affected do not suffer a disadvantage as a result of the introduction of fees.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and others concerned with university teaching and research will be reassured by what I have just said; but I must point out that the act of decerebration is a regulated procedure and subsequent work on decerebrate mammalian preparations as referred to in the amendment will be a regulated procedure. There can be no exemption granted from the rigours of the projects and personal licensing system for work of this sort. Indeed, we consider that the responsibilities involved in using live animals are emphasised by the requirement to be licensed.
1192
However, as I have indicated, the arrangements which we have in hand are aimed at ensuring that the cost of the necessary licensing arrangements will be refunded to the universities and therefore does not provide an obstacle to the very skilled and valuable work which is carried out in our universities. I do not think that I have gone quite so far as the noble Lord would wish, but I hope that, with the assurances that I have been able to give him, he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am partially reassured but I am beginning to learn of the very great complexities that exist in terms of the way in which public funds reach universities, or sometimes do not reach universities. I very much hope that in the relevant departments we shall see the effect of the generosity of the Home Office. With that, as I say, partial reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 43, after ("a") insert ("medicinal").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, and it may also be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 46, at end insert ("or of an order under section 35(8)(b) of that Act.").
Both of these amendments relate to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, which provides that a test on animals conducted under Section 32 of the Medicines Act 1968 is not a regulated procedure provided that it is administered in accordance with Section 32(4) of that Act. The purpose of this exemption is to allow for clinical trials of medicinal compounds which are controlled under the Medicines Act to be carried out without the need for further control under the Bill. Such trials are carried out at a stage when the licensing procedures under the Medicines Act will already have provided sufficient information to show that the product is safe to administer to animals and should not result in any pain or suffering. Since this is the case, the procedures do not fall within the scope of the Bill, and the provision in Clause 2(6) makes it clear that they are exempted.
The first amendment is a drafting amendment. As it stands, Clause 2(6) refers to the kind of clinical trial I have described merely as "a test", whereas the term used in the 1968 Act is "a medicinal test". By inserting the word "medicinal" the amendment brings the drafting of the Bill into line with the 1968 Act.
The purpose of the second amendment is to provide for a comparable exemption for clinical trials which are carried out for the same purpose as those conducted under Section 32 of the Medicines Act, but which are not subject to the formal requirements of Section 32 because of an exemption granted in an order made under Section 35(8)(b) of the same Act. The purpose of such an order is to permit the trial of medicinal products whose active ingredients have already been incorporated in products licensed under the Medicines Act, without the need for compliance with the restrictions imposed by Section 32 of the Act. In other respects the trials in question will be subject

1193
to close control by the Ministry of Agriculture and applicants will have to demonstrate that the products to be tested satisfy the safety and quality requirements of the legislation. In this way, the effective level of safeguards against such products causing pain or suffering when applied to an animal will be the same as for those trials carried out under Section 32 which are already exempted.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposes shortly to make an order under Section 35(8)(b) of the Medicines Act 1968 for the purpose I have described. It is logical that the trials to which the order relates should be treated in the same way under the Bill as those already exempted by Clause 2(6). The amendment before your Lordships would achieve this, by extending the exemption in Clause 2(6) to cover medicinal tests carried out under a Section 35(8)(b) order. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, under Section 32 of the 1968 Act there are various licences; product licence; animal test certificate; clinical trial certificate. Are these issued by the Ministry of Agriculture or do they come under the same general category as they do in the rest of the Bill, that is to say, the Home Office? Can my noble friend tell us who issues these certificates and under what circumstances?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that they come under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Personal licences]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 3, line 43, after ("person") insert—

("(a) who does not satisfy the Secretary of State that he is competent in the skills of anaesthesia (where anaesthetic is to be used), analgesia (in painful procedures), euthanasia (where the animal is to be killed) and modern animal care; or

(b) who is").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. The object of putting this amendment before your Lordships' House is to follow up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in col. 388 of Hansard, at the Committee stage of the Bill. Replying to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he said that he would try to find a suitable form of words to make this point explicit in the guidelines. He has had a little time now to look at that and I thought that this would be a suitable opportunity to ask the Minister to tell us how he has got on with that endeavour. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, may I also refer to the Minister's words on Second Reading, at col. 1047 of Hansard, when he assured the House that:
1194
"the important point is that personal licences will be granted only where we are satisfied of the training, education and general suitability of the applicants".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has tried very hard to meet the drafting problem with the amendment that he moved on 12th December, which would have required all personal licensees to be competent in anaesthesia, euthanasia, analgesia and animal care, whatever the work they were to be engaged in. This amendment only requires them to be competent in those areas if they are to work in those areas. I readily concede, as I did on 12th December, that there is scope for adding to the guidance notes on these points. The actual rewording of the guidance notes has not yet been completed. It is subject to discussion, as the noble Lord will be aware, but there is that scope available in it.
The amendment, as it stands, still does not work despite the great improvements that the noble Lord has made in the amendment which he has tabled. A licensee might work on a task where an anaesthetic or analgesic needs to be used or euthanasia applied but where there is another competent licensed expert also engaged in the work. Of course, if the licensee were on his own, it is essential that he is competent and, as I have indicated in previous discussions, the whole effect of the system of personal licensing would be to enable the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that people are only permitted to carry out procedures or techniques for which they have the necessary competence.
5.30 p.m.
The guidance note contains an explicit reference to this. Paragraph 32, second sentence, states that:
"The purpose of the personal licensing system is to ensure that the applicant is competent to perform the techniques he plans to use in procedures under the Act".
A personal licence will not be issued unless we are satisfied of this. That, I think, was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was getting at when he referred to my earlier remarks at Second Reading. The relevance of the guidance notes is essential here because of the difficulties of placing the necessary detail on to the face of the Bill.
The amendment which the noble Lord has put down adds a requirement which will in many cases be unnecessary and does not improve upon the precautions which will be taken. But I shall once again repeat my assurance that we will add to paragraphs 28 to 36 of the guidance note to bring out the entirely sensible and uncontroversial policy which I believe lies behind the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will feel further reassured and be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his continued reassurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 4 I have to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there is an error, it should read:
"Page 4, line 11, at end insert".
Clause 5 [Project licences]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted for the performance-testing of any sort of weapon.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing this point at the Committee stage the Minister gave an assurance that no experiments were conducted on any animal for the performance testing of any sort of weapon. This point has come up from time to time and people have strong feelings about it. If this does not happen, and I accept that it does not, it seems to me that it will do nothing but good to broadcast that fact as much as possible. I see no reason why it should not be written into the Bill. I have therefore put down the amendment in order that it should be. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have put my name. I have been considering carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told us at the Committee stage. Although I accept that within the terms he used performance testing of weapons does not take place, it seems to me that things are not quite as clear cut as we were led to believe.
There are two reasons for that. First, he said (at col. 397) on 12th December:
"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".
But my attention has been drawn to the Government's reply in another place on 22nd March 1984 (at col. 570) where it is made clear that in experiments conducted at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down some wounding experiments involve the recovery of the animals. The third paragraph of the Answer says:
"conditions imposed on licences are complied with and where the Act requires…certificates, these are obtained. For example, this is necessary where animals are allowed to recover from anaesthesia".
It says later that some animals will be allowed to recover from anaesthesia in order to trace the course of the wound. I think that there is suffering involved.
The same Written Answer also makes it clear that some rubber bullet and plastic baton round tests have been conducted on animals. A more detailed reply was given in another place on 21st February last year (at col. 501). It was said that the purpose of the tests was to ensure that the rules governing their use were such as to minimise the risk of injury. It seems to me that in that case in particular we are entering a rather grey area between experiments on animals designed to help surgeons deal with people injured by bullets and the performance testing of weapons. I should have thought that tests on plastic baton rounds fell firmly between the two cases that we were talking about at Committee stage.
The amendment may help to clear up the uncertainty that we found ourselves in at the Committee stage, and, as the noble Lord said firmly on behalf of the Government that these things should not and did not happen, it would be a welcome addition to the Bill and make the position much more clear. It
1196
would also reassure a great many people outside Parliament who are concerned.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, during the Committee stage, as has been indicated, we discussed the issue of the performance testing of weapons in response to an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and also in the context of an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. As the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Beaumont, have both said, I stated then that in the United Kingdom animals are not used for the performance testing of weapons. I made it clear that we allow the study of wounds inflicted by weapons but that is solely in work designed to produce better methods of treatment, and I stand by what I said. I believe that it is quite legitimate and, as I said, the animals are deeply anaesthetised when that work is done.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asks about experiments to test how to treat wounds. That is a different matter from weapon testing. Animals recovering from wounds are given analgesics. They need to recover in order that the recovery from wounds may be studied. The tissue will not react if the animal is dead. The tests on baton rounds are to protect human beings and that must be as paramount as the need to take the greatest care over animals. There is no question of licensing the deliberate infliction of wounds to find ways to improve weapon performance. The noble Lord may feel that it is a grey area but I assure him that there is no question of that happening. Your Lordships will recall that I made that point also during the Second Reading debate. I understand the concern, but I hope that the position has been made plain.
It would not in any case be possible to grant a project licence for the performance testing of any weapon because of the limited purposes for which licences may be granted, as described in Clause 5(3) of the Bill, on page 4. Seven possible purposes are listed and none could be stretched to apply to the performance testing of weapons. I cannot see that the amendment would add to that list.
I recognise the concern. I stand by what I said in Committee and I have repeated it today. The tests that have to be done are for the purposes that I described and not for what others may think they are for. I can go no further than that, but I hope that the noble Lords are reassured.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether, when the wound heals, the animals are then put down? I hope sincerely that they are not used again for experimentation on the progress of wounds.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are cases, as I have described, of the recovery of an animal from the impact of a plastic baton round being studied in order to determine the effect as the wound heals. The animal concerned will be given analgesics and it will, under some circumstances, recover. I can, however, assure my noble friend that there is no question of animals being used again. It is a once-only experiment. It is unfortunate that we live in times when plastic baton rounds are necessary.

1197
My noble friend may be concerned that some other sorts of weapons may be used leading perhaps to a condition that would not be suitable for recovery. But the sort of bruising that might occur from a plastic baton round leads quite often, I am assured, to a perfectly acceptable condition. After a few hours the animal is eating and behaving quite normally. It is simply bruised. But it is important to study the work. I hope that my noble friend is reassured about re-use.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, now that we are not using poison gas, which was extensively used on animals for some time, there does not seem to me to be the same need. My noble friend says, as I understand it, that because this is not permitted under Clause 5(3) it is therefore excluded. If that is so, we really have in principle the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved. In fact, it would add nothing to the Bill if it was inserted. If that is correct, why does not my noble friend do it. It makes clear that anything not contained in subsection (3) of Clause 5 would not be permitted. If that is the case, then licences for this purpose—that is, the performance testing of any weapon—are already excluded. Is that the case?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand my noble friend. I cannot really see, however, that by putting it in—when Clause 5(3) specifically says what the project licence shall be granted for and that
"unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is undertaken for one or more of the following purposes"
he shall not grant, effectively, that project licence—anything will be added. A question of drafting is involved here. It is not the practice to add that one definitely shall not do something in another context. To add to it in another way would not be the sort of thing that the draftsman, or anyone else for that matter, would necessarily approve of.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, there is nothing at all, so far as I can see—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—in Clause 5(3) to authorise the testing of the wounding effect of weapons. There is nothing at all in Clause 5(3) to authorise the appropriate licence.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I suspect that it is covered by paragraph (d), which relates to:
"the advancement of knowledge in biological or behavioural sciences".
I am looking at this quickly. Paragraph (a) refers to diagnosis or treatment, ill health or abnormality. That abnormality, or effects, as the Bill states, will of course be that which we are concerned about when we talk, for example, of plastic baton rounds. I believe it to be covered. If I discover that it is not, I shall immediately rectify the position.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give some other examples of what that could cover? This raises all sorts of possibilities in our minds. It has been mentioned that the results of plastic baton rounds would come into that category. What other kind of wound could be inflicted that would be permissible under paragraph (a)?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure how often I can get to my feet on Report stage. However, with the leave of the House, if I may respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I do not think that I can go into the realms of hypothesis on other sorts of issues that might fall within this area. What is clear from the Bill, and what was brought out in the earlier discussion, is that no licence to do anything that is in the least outside the scope of the Bill and does not satisfy the Secretary of State will be granted. That is the assurance. It is an assurance that will be regularly scrutinised by the inspectors and by others. I do not believe that the noble Baroness need have any concern that something untoward will take place.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is right. We are in danger of slipping into a Committee stage. The House always gives licence to the Minister to come back at least once at Report stage. I believe, however, that we should now wind up the debate. I thank the noble Lord for trying to help as best he can. I do not believe that he has, in fact, put forward a very good answer for not writing this into the Bill. But, obviously, given the goodwill of the Government on this point, it is not worth pressing this any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) All project licences shall specify the manner of euthanasia to be employed where animals are to be killed either as part of a project or on its completion.
( ) A project licence shall specify that all personal licensees carrying out procedures under authority of a project licence shall be—

(a) competent and skilled in all procedures for which they are authorised; and

(b) competent to provide any necessary nursing care.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this comes back to a point which we also discussed at Committee stage. Indeed, it raises similar issues to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Amendment No. 3A to Clause 4. I have looked at what the noble Lord the Minister said at Committee stage and also at what he said to me in a letter sent on 6th January, for which I was grateful. The letter contained much helpful information including some corrections of matters that I had misunderstood. I should like to thank the noble Lord and his department for taking the trouble to give me that information.
In relation to this point, the noble Lord said, as he has done again today, that he was looking at the possibility—I think, in fact, it is his intention—of revising the draft guidance so that more detail about proficiency in anaesthesia is included. It seemed to me, however, that the debate at Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, concentrated on the question of personal licences. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, reminded us, that led to the difficulty that a number of people applying for personal licences would be asked about their proficiency in anaesthesia even though none of them was likely ever to use an anaesthetic or to need that skill.
It seemed to me therefore that the best way of getting at this problem, or this concern, about proficiency in anaesthesia and other matters such as euthanasia—a matter also discussed in Committee—would be to look at the project licence, and be sure that when a particular project was being licensed it was a condition of the licence that the individuals concerned in carrying out matters that involved killing animals, anaesthetising them, or being involved in other complex and difficult procedures, had the requisite personal skills.
I have mentioned euthanasia. The first part of my amendment deals with that subject. Again, this is something that we looked at in Committee. Unfortunately, I put down an amendment which meant that every time someone set a mousetrap they would need a project licence and a personal licence, and that they would no doubt have to get the mouse from a designated supplying establishment. I hope that the amendment now before the House overcomes that fairly substantial problem by making this specific to the project for which the licence application is being made.
On the question of killing animals, having looked at what was said at Committee stage, I think that some noble Lords underestimated the degree of skill and expertise needed to do that unpleasant job with the least suffering possible being felt by the animal. But this is a matter where skill has to be developed and where techniques change and develop over the years.
I think that some of the matters suggested at Committee stage would not now be done in a reputable laboratory by skilled people. Techniques have changed. It therefore seems to me all the more important that, as each project is applied for, the Secretary of State and his advisers examine the skill of the individuals who will be carrying out that project. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the first part of this amendment would require project licences to specify the manner of euthanasia to be employed where animals are to be killed. I well recall that during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made plain his concern for ensuring that the killing of experimental animals is always properly carried out. I certainly share that concern. But I do not consider that this amendment is a necessary or appropriate means to achieve it.
The Bill already contains comprehensive controls over the killing of animals. Schedule 1 to the Bill details a number of methods of killing which, in tightly defined circumstances, will not be a regulated procedure and thus will not require to be licensed under the Bill. In every other case the killing of an experimental animal either during a procedure or at the conclusion of a project will be closely controlled. That is the combined effect of Clause 2(7), which covers the killing of the animal for experimental or other scientific purposes, Clause 10(5) which deals with killing of animals which do not require to be killed during or as a result of a regulated procedure, and Clause 15, which covers the position where an animal is suffering adverse effects at the conclusion of a series of regulated procedures. In each case, unless a
1200
method specified in Schedule 1 is employed, the method of killing is controlled.
As a regulated procedure forming part of a project it will have to be licensed; and as part of the process of licensing the applicant for the personal licence will have to specify and have authorised the technique to be employed. Where an animal is required to be killed at the conclusion of a series of procedures because it continues to suffer adverse effects Clause 15 requires the method to be one specified under Schedule 1 or a method authorised by the personal licence of the licensee concerned. Similarly, where an animal is killed in a designated establishment otherwise than as a regulated procedure, or under Clause 15, the method of killing must be specifically approved unless it is a Schedule 1 method.
In view of this I do not think that there is any need for this part of the noble Lord's amendment. But I understand the concern of the noble Lord about the importance of this most fundamental act: that of taking life. I shall examine carefully the scope for making clearer in the Home Office guidance note that specific authorisation of methods of euthanasia other than those in Schedule 1 will be required by all licensees who wish to employ such techniques.
I turn now to the second part of the amendment, which seeks to insert in the project licence two requirements which must be satisfied by all personal licensees working under that licence. As I mentioned in reference to the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, paragraph 32 of the draft Home Office guidance note makes the position very clear. It says:
"The purpose of the personal licensing system is to ensure that the applicant is competent to perform the techniques he plans to use in procedures under the Act".
That is what we shall seek to ensure through the personal licensing system. We cannot necessarily ensure that an applicant is skilled in a procedure since this may be his first time of carrying it out. If that is so, we shall require him to work under supervision until he is skilled. However, the whole basis of the personal licensing system will be to ensure the competence of applicants to carry out authorised procedures. A personal licence will not be issued unless we are satisfied with this. Paragraphs 28 to 36 of the draft guidance note are devoted to explaining how this will be done.
The assessment of competence will also include assessment of ability to provide for the care of animals where this is necessary—the nursing care referred to in the amendment. For some personal licensees—perhaps a senior licensee who is only involved in the most intricate procedure—there will be little need for such skills and, of course, much of this work is carried out by technicians.
I should like to take this opportunity to put on record our appreciation of the very high standard of care which technicians provide for laboratory animals. It is something which has certainly impressed me very greatly during the visits I have made to laboratories. The general competence and ability in animal care will therefore be assessed as part of the personal licensing procedure. However, I shall certainly look again at the draft guidance note with a view to inserting an explicit

1201
reference to the assessment of ability to provide nursing care where appropriate.
From what I have said I think it will be clear that I do not consider that this amendment is appropriate. I hope that in the light of the two commitments I have given—to look for scope to improve the draft guidance note—the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, there are in the schedule various methods of killing, some of which are very simple, and others, such as method No. 7—"exposure to carbon dioxide", etc.—which may need more skill and experience. May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether with the more skilled (if I may use that word) methods of killing the animal humanely a veterinary surgeon, or a doctor, or somebody with medical experience carries out these acts?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that much will depend upon the technique to be used. Certainly exposure to carbon dioxide—the noble Lord referred particularly to method No. 7—is the kind of technique which I believe will certainly require specialist advice. The answer to my noble friend therefore is: sometimes but not always, and much depends upon the technique that is to be used. I can assure my noble friend that no one will attempt to carry out this sort of procedure unless they are fully competent and trained to do it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am very grateful for the assurances that the noble Lord has given, which take us a long way forward. The noble Lord made a long and detailed speech which I should like to read. I was particularly grateful for the two categoric assurances that the noble Lord gave about the guidelines. It may well be that that is the best way of dealing with this problem and meeting these concerns.
I should like to study what the noble Lord said on one point particularly carefully. While I accept that the Government foresee that the necessary competence will be ensured through the personal licensing system, the noble Lord said at Committee stage that there will be some people with personal licences who will never need, for example, to administer anaesthetics and will therefore not need those skills. I agree with the noble Lord that the best way to deal with this may well be in the guidelines, but I want to be sure that the level of personal skill of the people involved matches the skills needed in the particular project. It seems to me that that is what I was looking for with this amendment. However, the noble Lord has gone a long way to meet my concerns and I am very grateful to him for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6:
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: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. This is one which we discussed at Committee stage and which received a rather hostile
1202
reaction from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. Having had a chance to consider this again, I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to go a little further down the road and agree that there is a problem here. Certainly many people outside Parliament believe that many animals suffer unnecessarily in the course of testing and developing products for which there are already perfectly satisfactory equivalents, if not identical products on the market.
One respect in which we became rather sidetracked in the Committee stage concerned the suggestion that the amendment is likely to interfere with research. It does not seem to me that that is at all likely, because nobody is very likely to set out on a research programme, and probably not on a development programme, if he is simply looking for an identical product to one already on the market.
6 p.m.
However, that does not mean to say that there are not products developed, particularly medical products, with identical or very similar effects to many already on the market and available. Those products will often not involve any basic or strategic research and may not involve very much development, either. They will simply be reformulations, or compounds using different carriers, or the mixing of compounds, or compounds which dissolve where others do not do so, and so on. All of those compounds are likely to have to be tested, and to be tested on animals. Under many legal requirements there may be the necessity to carry out the LD.50 test on them, and so on. It is the use of animals in that area—not as regards research and development but as regards testing—which gives rise to a great deal of public concern.
As we discussed in Committee, some companies which make household products have already forsworn the use of animals in safety-testing their products before putting them on the market, and the same is true of many companies which produce beauty products, such as make-up, scent and so on. Nevertheless, there remains very widespread public concern that animals will be used and killed in the process of testing products which are only being developed in order for somebody to get a share of a lucrative market and not to meet any real human need, or medical or other problem which the new product may overcome.
Therefore, I think that there is a need to ensure not that that type of testing is banned by the Bill—I accept that that would be unrealistic, and I accepted that at the Committee stage—but simply that this area of concern is put before the Secretary of State by the legislation when he is considering whether or not a project licence should be granted. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It will ensure that the Secretary of State has to:
"take into account the availability of products with similar or identical effects".
During the Committee stage some criticism was aimed at the looseness of the wording:
"products with similar or identical effects".
It was suggested that it would be very difficult for the Secretary of State to work out whether something had an indentical effect; that very rarely would one find an

1203
identical effect; and that "similar" was a vague word. It seems to me that if all that we are asking the Secretary of State to do is to take those factors into account when reaching a decision about whether or not to issue a licence, it is quite reasonable to give him guidance couched in those kind of words. If we were laying a duty on the Secretary of State to do something regardless, then I accept that the wording would have to be more tightly drawn.
I draw your Lordships' attention again to Clause 5(4), under which the Secretary of State will be engaged in exactly that type of process. It says:
"the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned".
I repeat: "the likely adverse effects". It is not a categoric instruction; it is something about which the Secretary of State will have to make an assessment against the likely benefit which may accrue as a result of the programme. In other words, when this Bill becomes an Act the Secretary of State will be involved in the process of weighing up the pros and cons. In my view that is right. As I said on Second Reading, I think that that is one of the most important advances which the Bill makes over the present law. It therefore seems to me quite reasonable that we should draw the Secretary of State's attention to the availability of identical products when he comes to make this assessment of the likely benefits as against the suffering of the animals involved. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. I should like to give a few additional reasons to those which have already been given by my noble friend for including this amendment. There can be no doubt that there are a vast number of unnecessary drugs which are introduced for commercial reasons. One can only wonder whether all of them are necessary.
There has been a great deal of research and surveys have been made about the medicinal products which are marketed. A survey was made of the medicinal products marketed in the period 1971 to 1981 in the United Kingdom. It was made by the medicines division of the DHSS and it concluded that even the remaining new chemical entities:
"have largely been introduced into therapeutic areas already heavily over-subscribed [and] 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".
There has also been a report brought out in France by a health economist. That report revealed that 508 new chemical entities were marketed for the first time during the period 1975 to 1984. The drugs were analysed by therapeutic category and it was concluded that over 70 per cent. of the products were considered to offer no therapeutic advance over existing alternatives. That seems to be very conclusive.
It must surely be felt by a great many members of the public—and my noble friend Lord Melchett has made this point—that if this Bill could discourage the development of duplicate drugs, it would be a very great advance. Many people could even see it as being beneficial to doctors and patients, because it really
1204
must be quite impossible these days for an overworked doctor to be familiar with an ever-increasing number of drugs. Indeed, more in-depth knowledge of fewer drugs would be of benefit not only to the doctor but obviously to the patient as well, particularly in view of the large number—indeed, the epidemic number—of drug side-effects.
As my noble friend has said, he is asking the Secretary of State to take into account the availability of products with similar or identical effects. In view of all the evidence that in many cases drugs are introduced for commercial reasons rather than for therapeutic reasons, surely the amendment is a very good way of ensuring that that does not continue. I very strongly support the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, there is some public anxiety that this amendment would introduce a most undesirable restriction upon the considerations which the Secretary of State bears in mind in determining whether or not, and on what terms, to grant a project licence. As I understand it, the amendment rests on the assumption that the pharmaceutical industry has been devoting, and is devoting, a large part of its energies to the production of "me-too" drugs.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, quoted at some length from the paper on licensed products in the United Kingdom from which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has just quoted a sentence or two and which, together with a paper from a French health economist—which I regret I have not read—she described as "conclusive".
I applied myself to the article which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, cited at the Committee stage and which the noble Baroness has just quoted. The noble Lord cited its conclusion; he said that the authors concluded that these new chemical entities have largely been introduced into therapeutic areas already heavily oversubscribed. In fact, the conclusion of that paper points in a wholly different direction. The last paragraph of the paper, which the noble Baroness did not cite, reads as follows:
"The picture for the future is not as gloomy as might appear however from the survey of new chemical entities reaching the market. … For the 1980s it would appear that innovation in the area of genetic engineering is going to represent a major growth area and it can reasonably be expected that insulin, human growth hormone, interferon [and a number of other drugs] produced using recombinant DNA techniques in micro-organisms will reach the market. Innovation in the field of improved pharmaceutical delivery systems is also likely to lead to major improvements in therapeutics."
The view which has been presented to us, that the industry is placing greater and greater emphasis on useless "me-too" drugs, manufactured for nothing but commercial reasons, is not supported by any of the evidence which has been cited to us.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not think that I or, for that matter, my noble friend either today or at the Committee stage suggested that there was a trend in the industry which was leading to more and more "me-too" drugs being produced. In fact, I would be quite happy to accept that the trend is in the other direction. But surely the paper which we have both quoted makes it clear that there are some cases where

1205
at least some officials in the Government believe that "me-too" drugs have been produced. It does not really matter whether no more than that can be accepted.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, obviously some "me-too" drugs have been produced. What is at issue is the direction and development of the manufacture of drugs. The impression that I was given at the Committee stage by the citing of this article was wholly different from the understanding that I derived from reading it. It is important when laymen are involving themselves in these debates that they should apply themselves with some care to the sources they are using.
There are a number of other points to be made. First, no one can predict what research—which, after all, takes a long time and which may begin on a "me-too" drug—will ultimately produce. Secondly, my lay understanding of "me-too" drugs has been changed considerably by discussing them with experts. I learn that "me-too" drugs are frequently essential for treatment because different people react differently at different times to the same drug. Anyone who has lived with someone suffering from arthritis will know the drift of that. All of us are familiar with someone who has reacted adversely to penicillin. Clearly, it is very desirable that there should be work on "me-too" antibiotics, which may have the effect of making provision for people in such circumstances.
I could continue with this sort of discussion, but it seems to point very importantly in the direction of not restricting the Secretary of State's determination of the considerations involved in giving a project licence in this way. I hope that we shall oppose this amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, without wishing to join issue with my noble friend on this, it seems to me that the usefulness of this amendment is that the Secretary of State may be in a better position than the particular applicant for the licence to know whether other similar products are available. There may be some other similar product available from abroad which comes to the Secretary of State's attention but which is not known to the applicant for the licence. That seems to me to be a good reason for supporting this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has said. The benefits in testing relating to this proposed amendment presuppose that they are solely to the human being. What worries me is that drugs which can help to cure and which can be of great benefit to many people very often have very bad side effects on others. It is absolutely essential that we are able to test drugs that give the same curative benefit but which have different side effects on different people or no side effects. There are occasions when drugs that can be beneficial in certain diseases cannot be prescribed because the side effects are so great that they are worse than the disease itself. If the Secretary of State is limited by an amendment such as this, we may well find that we are not in a position to produce alternative drugs.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, it has always been my belief that the Medicines Commission was set up to look inter alia into this problem. Surely the fact that it takes a long time to obtain a patent licence on a drug means that the "me-too" drugs have at least been very much decreased. Of course, if one sees the advertisements in some of the medical press one will realise that the medical profession itself, and particularly general practitioners, will deplore a proliferation of "me-too" drugs.
So far as the pharmaceutical companies themselves are concerned, particularly the larger companies, if there was a surfeit of these "me-too" drugs their profits would surely diminish because there would not be the need for these drugs to be used. Of course, side effects are an important consideration. Therefore, while "me-too" drugs are to be discouraged, I believe that, among other pieces of legislation, there is current legislation under the Medicines Act which should take care of the purpose of this amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, surely the Secretary of State will have enough knowledge of the subject to realise that that is the case. This amendment is not in the least limiting him. It is merely saying that he shall take into account the fact that there are other products. That being the case, I entirely sympathise with the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, I indicated that I would carefully consider the subject in the light of our previous discussions; and that I have done. However, I must tell him that I remain of the view that this amendment would not be suitable for inclusion in the Bill. I shall deal first with the paper referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and subsequently raised today. This was a paper by two persons employed as senior members of the medical staff of the Department of Health and Social Security, though I understand that the document was not an official production of that department. The paper reviewed the new medicinal products licensed in the United Kingdom during the period 1971 to 1981. Others of your Lordships may not have had the benefit of seeing this paper, so I shall be brief and I shall not go into too many quotations.
The paper indeed notes that the bulk of the new substances licensed were concentrated on a relatively small number of conditions. However, I should say that having read this in context I note that the main focus of the paper is on the small number of new substances licensed each year. During the period reviewed this was in the region of 20 a year. It was these which were clustered in the way that the noble Lord's quotation referred to at the Committee stage.
A large number of other products were licensed, but these were not new chemical entities. The view in the paper was that if there is a low number of new substances becoming available this is a bad thing, and I am bound to say that I agree with that. As Hippocrates said over 2,000 years ago:
"The life so short, the art so long to learn".
We are all aware of the great scope which still exists for developing medical treatment both in dramatic and in more mundane ways. My concern about this amendment is that it does not fully take account of that need.

1207
The amendment is based upon the idea that the decision whether to allow research into the development of a product should take account of the existence of any other product with a similar or identical effect. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seems to be of the view that where other products already exist the product to be developed is likely to be of less value because of this, and as a result it should be more difficult to justify issuing the necessary project licences.
There are some important arguments against this view. First, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, said, there are variations in the response of individual patients to medicines. This was a point also brought out by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. There is virtually no medicine which is completely effective in the treatment of a disease in all patients. That seems to me to be the nub of it.
Most medicines have some limitations, and in many cases may be effective only in a limited number of patients. The fact is that there is a benefit to the community in the existance of a range of medicines for a particular condition, each with a similar effect, if this allows the medicine to be tailored to the patient. The idea that we can stop looking for a remedy for a particular condition once we have one remedy to hand really is nonsense; and, of course, progress is often incremental. Treatment for a condition may be improved by the slow addition of unspectacular refinements. The great dramatic breakthrough is by no means the only route to success in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor brought out another valuable point, and that is that research is an exceedingly long and complex process and the final outcome often cannot be predicted accurately. We have to be extremely careful not to cut off the chance of health or lifesaving advances because of a narrow view of usefulness of the anticipated result.
The third point is that in some senses research does not stop when a product is marketed. Its use in clinical practice over a number of years has to be monitored and evaluated before the therapeutic benefits can be properly assessed. The question of a therapeutic advance is exceedingly complex. The penalties for the community of a wrong judgment made at the point at which a project licence application is considered could be very serious indeed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested, this amendment would put the Secretary of State in a position of having to take into account the availability of other products. But, as I have tried to show, this really is not a task which the Secretary of State should have placed upon him. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of a factor of a drug, or whatever. To suggest that the Secretary of State might be better placed than applicants to know whether other products are available, which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested, I do not think is right. The pharmaceutical company is much better placed than the Secretary of State to know whether other products are available. It seems to me to be their lifeblood to know precisely that.
It sounds simple enough, but the Secretary of State would not be able to do it in the way that the noble Lord wishes it to be done without running a grave risk
1208
of damaging the research and production base upon which our future advances in the medicines depend, and also denying the community some of the benefits of continuing developments in this essential area of research which we all want to see go on. I have answered the noble Lord at rather greater length than I had intended, but the result of his amendment would have far-reaching and damaging effects, and I hope he will see his way clear to withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, although we are on Report, as I was referred to just now may I simply ask this question? Is there to be absolutely no limitation upon the number of new projects that are to be undertaken when there appears to be a multiplicity of drugs of that character already on the market? People outside Parliament are tremendously concerned about this aspect of the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I recognise that concern. We return in essence to the fundamentals of the Bill, and that is the need to ensure that project licences are given only in areas where it is essential for the work to be carried out. Obviously I cannot speak for the drug companies, but research will continue, and research that involves the use of animals will be minimised. That is the purpose not only of the drug companies but also of the Bill in the sense of the project licence issue.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have listened to the comments on my amendment, and again it has aroused considerable interest. I find the arguments raised against this suggestion difficult to follow, not to say contradictory. On the one hand, it is argued that no commercial company in its right mind would develop a "me too" drug because the cost of development is so great that it would not be worth while if there was already something on the market. On the other hand, it is suggested that anything which looks like a "me too" drug is not so really because it may have slightly different side effects on some people who take it than on others—although how it is possible to tell that when development starts I should be interested to know.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, there is another limb of the argument which contradicts the first two; that is, that there are some "me too" drugs produced but that the number is decreasing.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I was simply quoting the article that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, quoted. It was that article which said that the number of "me too" drugs was decreasing.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord: I thought he quoted that part of the article because it was a part with which he agreed. If he did not agree with it, he certainly did not say so at the time.
It may well be the case, as the article said, that the number of "me too" drugs is decreasing, and some suggestion that that was the case was made by at least one other noble Lord. But there are examples—and I would say that the enormous proliferation of minor tranquillisers is one—of where a new drug is produced,

1209
there is a large market for it, and on the whole it is not a case of a serious disease with fatal effects being treated.
I am quite sure that if, for example, one pharmaceutical company were to find a drug which counteracted the effects of an alcoholic hangover, there would be no question of other pharmaceutical companies saying, "We must not enter into that market: it has already been satisfied by a drug". Nor would they be worrying about the side effects that the particular drug might have. They would see that here was a huge commercial market, with world-wide sales of billions of pounds, and all of them would be doing research and development from that second to produce their own product to fill that market.
What has not been mentioned by any of those who oppose this amendment is at what cost this is done to the animals involved. The question that none of those who oppose the amendment has addressed themselves to is: are we justified in producing a drug with slightly different side-effects on a small number of people in every case where that has occurred at the cost of many animals being killed, many animals suffering under unpleasant and possibly very painful experiments? That is the question which nobody who opposed this amendment either at Committee stage or now on Report has seen fit to address. That is the question to which I feel we ought to be asking the Secretary of State to address his mind. I am worried at the thought that the Bill will become an Act without that being made explicit in it.
I am conscious that the amendment has had a mixed reception in your Lordships' House. I am not sure that it would advance my case very much to put the matter to the vote. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place they will return to this and they will benefit from the arguments which are being exposed on either side in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) A project licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that thorough consideration has been given to the use of alternative methods and the use of live animals is the only feasible means of achieving the purpose.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment moves from the question of alternative products to alternative methods in making the necessary experiments and investigations. The amendment that we have put down has taken the requirement from the guidelines and has put it into the Bill. When dealing with this amendment at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"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".—[Official Report, 12/12/85; col. 429.]
I do not think that that is a good enough argument to put before your Lordships' House. This is a Bill in which we are trying to spell out what the law is. If we agree that the object of this amendment is worth
1210
achieving then we should put it in. I cannot frankly see or visualise the situation in which this could possibly be brought to the courts and therefore have the kind of result which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, seemed to be putting forward as the main objection to this amendment. It is surely absolutely worthwhile that full consideration should be given to the use of alternative methods and that the use of live animals should be the only feasible means of achieving the purpose. That is agreed on all sides. It is written into the guidelines. It seems to me to be a good thing to write it into the Bill, not least because it puts it on the plate of the Secretary of State.
When the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in dealing with the last amendment, said that the Secretary of State had a considerable amount of expertise and knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answered—to paraphrase his words—that the large drug companies probably had a great deal more. I do not think that that argument should be allowed to stand unquestioned. To start with, we are not only talking about the experiments that will be done by the large drug companies, but we are considering experiments which will be done in small university departments or similar such resources. To continue and to look at the other side I seem to remember that at an earlier stage of this Bill (I cannot give chapter and verse now) we were assured that the resources at the disposal of the Secretary of State and the advisory committee were enormous, and that all the results and scientific expertise already now flow into the Home Office and are available. If that is so, we should be able to tap it. One of the ways it should be tapped in the defence of animals is by writing this into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, very briefly, I wish to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Indeed, I endorse all he has said in support of it. As I understand it, one of the objects of the Bill is to reduce, if not to eliminate, the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures. This is one way of achieving that end. I do not want to anticipate what is ahead of us, but assuming that Amendment No. 19, which reflects the thinking of the Government, is acceptable to your Lordships' House, it appears to me that this amendment is almost consequential on Amendment No. 19. I support the amendment on the grounds that this is one way, possibly the best way, of ensuring the objects of the Bill. If it is not acceptable to the Government, what real significance do we attach to the objects as set out and as reflected in Amendment No. 19 to which we shall come?
Lord Auckland: My Lords, if it were the case that an increasing number of live animals were being used in these experiments, there would then be much substance in this amendment. My noble friend the Minister will confirm or deny whether the number of live animals being used in experiments is on the decrease. I do not know whether he has any figures available.
Also in these amendments an enormous amount will devolve on the Secretary of State. Surely under the very rigid rules for project licences already written into the Bill this is very largely taken care of. If a large

1211
number of new animals were being used in these experiments there would be every justification for an amendment of this kind. But as I understand that fewer are being used I wonder whether this is rather a superfluous amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley because it springs from a misunderstanding of the definable character of a feasible alternative. Commonsense and economics are what we must rely on to ensure that alternative methods, being much cheaper than the use of live animals, will be used wherever available. But there is no watertight definition of what is a feasible alternative. One has to experiment with alternatives and animals in parallel on the same tests for a very long time to validate the alternative. We are back to the old tussle that we have had from the start about what should be put in the Bill, what is to be put as a condition in the licence and what is to be put in the guidelines.
The conditions of the licence and what is put in the guidelines are elastic. Once the Bill is an Act it is inelastic. If one is to put any firm inelastic injunction into the Bill, into what will always be an elastic and fluid situation, one would be committing a complete and total mistake.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl has used that argument and did so on several occasions at Committee stage, sometimes with some force. However, it does not seem to me to be a valid argument in relation to this amendment. The consequence of what the noble Earl is saying is that there may forseeably come a time when he thinks it would be right for a licence to be given when a thorough consideration has not been given to the alternatives to the use of live animals. I do not think any of us believes that we are legislating in this field so that the law will mean that it is possible for a future Secretary of State to dish out licences without any consideration of whether alternatives are available. It may be that to write into the Bill specific requirements about particular tests like the LD50 test and so on poses difficulties, because, if some EEC regulation comes in which requires these tests to take place or which increases the number of animal tests, a specific requirement in the Bill affected by that would be a considerable disadvantage and it would be necessary to change the Act itself.
I really do not think that that is a valid argument in respect of this amendment, unless the noble Lord is prepared to carry his logic through and say, "I am happy to see in the future the possibility of the Secretary of State saying, 'I don't give a fig about the alternatives. I am going to give a licence anyhow in these circumstances, even if valid alternatives are available' ". That is not the case and I do not think it would be within the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill as it is drafted. It seems to me that this sort of provision appearing on the face of the Bill rather than in the guidelines—and it is going to have an effect whether it appears in the guidelines or the Bill; I accept
1212
that immediately—will have the consequence of underlining its importance.
In particular, it seems to me to change the character of the Bill slightly. One of my worries at the Committee stage—and we shall come to this later, so I shall not do more than mention it at the moment—was that the terms of reference of the Animal Procedure Committee were very static in the way they were drawn. They did not envisage any possibility of improvement in the situation. We come to that later. I think that that also to some extent applies to the conditions under which project licences might be granted.
I hope that all of us, without any antagonism, without anybody feeling threatened by it, look forward to the day when gradually fewer and fewer animals are used in experiments and more and more alternatives become available. Some would like to see that process going faster, or believe that it could go faster, than others; but surely we are united in that.
Putting this amendment in the Bill simply reflects what I would have thought and hoped would be a united and unanimous view about the way things are already going and will continue to go in future. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, one great thing that including this amendment in the Bill might do is to stimulate research into alternative methods, which at the moment are rather few and far between. It is high time that a great deal more research took place, it seems to me. If we include this amendment of course, it will stimulate that approach.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should first say that we attach the highest importance to encouraging and promoting the use of alternatives—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has just made. It is a factor to which the Secretary of State will give the closest attention in deciding whether to grant project licence applications. If I may anticipate the amendment which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, Amendment No. 19, which we shall consider later, there is further evidence of the importance which we attach to this issue in that amendment. That amendment seeks to insert in the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee a specific requirement to have regard to the protection of animals against unnecessary use in scientific procedures.
However, as I made clear during the Committee stage, this is not a matter which it is appropriate to deal with on the face of the Bill. To that extent, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for bringing up the point. As I pointed out earlier, the question of whether an alternative method of research is feasible is really highly subjective and it would be completely wrong to make a provision of the Bill dependent upon a concept like this which could not be determined in a clear-cut way. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, does not like that remark. I quoted what was said and I repeated it. The whole thing boils down to the question of the subjectiveness of the term "feasibility", as I said just now—whether or not it should be on the face of the Bill or in the guidelines.

1213
6.45 p.m.
None of this should be taken as detracting at all from the need for this issue to be considered. I have said that we attach very great importance to the use of alternatives wherever possible; and in that I hope I reassured the noble Lord, Lord Somers. Indeed, the words of the amendment are set out in paragraph 58(b) of the draft Home Office guidance note:
"whether thorough consideration has been given to the use of alternative methods and the use of live animals is the only feasible means of achieving the purpose".
This is one of the most important factors which must be taken into account whenever it is relevant. All applicants for project licences will be required to declare on the application form that they have considered the use of alternative methods. This is a matter which will be vigorously examined, but it is not suitable for inclusion in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that my argument in relation to the Secretary of State's knowledge about drugs was perhaps the argument that I was advocating here. I think he may have got me slightly wrong. I may not have expressed it very well. It is certainly true that the Secretary of State knows better than some applicants whether alternatives are available—not quite the same thing as knowing which drugs are available and how they are developing. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in what he feels here, but again it boils down to the issue of whether or not it should be contained in the Bill or in the guidelines.
My noble friend Lord Auckland very rightly drew attention to the numbers of experiments. Although broad statistics are available—and I am sure that the noble Lord has a copy of Statistics of Experiments on Living Animals: Great Britain, 1984— in a nutshell, the decrease was from 5·6 million in 1970 to 3·5 million in 1984. We certainly hope that that figure reduces further; and a lot of people are doing a great deal to try to achieve that.
I have indicated why I do not believe that the purpose which this amendments aims to achieve needs, or is suitable, to be included in the Bill. I hope that In the light of the explanation I have given, and the assurance that the guidelines are the best place to put it, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not pretend to be convinced. As my noble friend Lord Halsbury has said, it is undoubtedly another of these questions as to where you draw the dividing line between what should be in the Bill and what should be in the various other documents. I do not think that the decisions which have been made are necessarily immutable, or that all of them are absolutely the right ones, although I certainly think that the general basis on which they have been put forward is the right one and is the result of good thinking, which is going to be very useful and helpful to the welfare of animals.
I also take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has made about the new amendment which has been put down to Clause 20; that is, Amendment No. 19. I think that is a very definite step forward. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Consultation.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Where a procedure involves risk of substantial pain or distress the Secretary of State, in addition to consulting an inspector under subsection (1) above, shall consult—

(a) two independent assessors; or

(b) the Animal Procedures Committee; or

(c) two independent assessors and the Animal Procedures Committee.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 9 and the question of issuing licences and the need for consultation before they are issued. At Committee stage we had a debate fairly late at night—later, I hope, than we shall be debating the Bill tonight—about this matter. In that case the amendment talked about consulting the Animal Procedures Committee and tackled two issues: a licence application for a procedure which would involve the infliction of pain of substantial severity or for the purpose of training in manual skills. The noble Lord told me that at least one aspect of training in manual skills was under review. There were objections raised to the automatic referral to the Animal Procedures Committee of all applications where there was a risk of substantial pain or distress being inflicted on an animal.
Another thing the noble Lord said at Committee stage was that we were talking here not about just a very small number of applications (which is what I and a number of other people had assumed) but about applications which would run into hundreds during any one year. The noble Lord very kindly wrote to me, as I said earlier, and one of the things he stated there was that he was not able to give any more precise figure that that. I can understand the difficulty of definition of a procedure where a risk is involved of inflicting substantial pain. Nevertheless, those kinds of judgments will be made when applications for particular projects are received. It seems to me that, given that we are talking here about procedures where anaesthetics will not be used because substantial pain or distress is likely to be inflicted, we are talking about experiments which are likely to cause the maximum amount of public concern. In those circumstances, it seems to me that rather more than simply the standard consultation with a Home Office inspector and one independent assessor is called for and is justified.
I considered the arguments against automatically referring all these things to the Animal Procedures Committee. I can see some weight in that but it seems to me, as an absolute minimum, that the Secretary of State should be required to consult two independent assessors rather than one in these cases. I have not just picked the figure two out of the air but I think it will be necessary, at the very least, to consult one person who will be well informed about the particular scientific area in which the procedure is to be carried out—that is, of research, if it is research work, or whatever. It would also be useful to consult at least one person who would have a great deal of expertise in the use of alternatives because this is an area, above all others, in which if an alternative procedure can be used—an alternative involving animals or an alternative involving no animals at all, which would be even better—then of course it should be.
However, it also occurred to me that there might be some applications which were controversial or likely to become controversial or difficult, or where for some reason or another—I can see this might be very exceptional—it was not possible to find two independent assessors. In those cases, it would be sensible for the Animal Procedures Committee to be called in or for the Secretary of State at least to have that option available to him should he require it. The amendment is therefore drafted to allow that kind of flexibility and indeed for a third possibility, namely, of both the assessors and the Animal Procedures Committee to be consulted if the Secretary of State so wishes. This is discretionary. The minimum, and the only absolute, requirement is that the Secretary of State should consult, as he has to do already, an inspector and at least two independent assessors.
Once again, we are dealing with a subject where, quite rightly and justifiably, a great deal of public concern is aroused—procedures involving at least the risk of substantial pain or distress. It seems to me that in those cases, even if they do number hundreds—and I certainly hope that in practice they will not—some rather more rigorous screening should be carried out before a project licence is granted. I have therefore tried in this amendment, in the hope that it will be acceptable to the Government, to set that additional screening at the minimum level I felt it was possible to devise. I have sought not to be obstructive or difficult in this amendment but genuinely to try to find a formula which would be satisfactory to those concerned in operating the system, bath in applying for licences and in carrying out the administrative procedures, and which would also go some way (if only a little way) towards allaying very deep-seated public concern. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I really cannot see that to introduce this new form of institutional surveyors of the administration of the Act is going to serve any useful purpose. The new thing suggested in this amendment is to bring in two independent assessors. Where are they to come from? Find me two independent assessors in this field! We will soon have to have a panel of independent assessors. I think that having got in place the Animal Procedures Committee, which is going to be the substantive body for reference by the Secretary of State, we ought to leave it to work these things out in its relationship with the Secretary of State. I think it can be done in that way; otherwise we are complicating our machinery and we are doing some of the things—all the time, as a matter of fact—which the general framework of the Bill was intended to avoid. Having given the Secretary of State a good deal of discretion, and having imposed upon him a good deal of authority and an awful lot of responsibility, we then seek to limit his discretion or to define its boundaries and thus complicate the Bill with clauses which are meaningless in statute law form.
We have just considered one or two which would have really no meaning in law, because it would be impossible to decide when they had been complied with. Here I think we are tending to go in the same direction of not leaving things alone, having got the
1216
Bill set up and the whole framework of administration within it. I think that if things turn out to be less than satisfactory in administration the Animal Procedures Committee—and it will not be advisory, but will have a higher and stronger status than that—will be there to watch what is going on and to make approaches to the Secretary of State on matters it thinks require its attention or which could be looked into by it with advantage. So I hope that my noble friend will not press this. It is an elaboration, it seems to me, which is unnecessary and which will only add to the problems of administration.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should just like to say that I heartily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has just said. With due respect to the movers of some of these amendments, they are really quite unnecessarily complicating the Bill. I should just like to reiterate my hearty agreement with the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not see that this amendment complicates the Bill. Again, with respect, I do not see that the Animal Procedures Committee will necessarily have a locus in this matter. It will have a locus in this matter only if the Secretary of State refers the matter to the committee for an opinion. It seems to me that the point my noble friend Lord Melchett is making is that whereas the Bill generally deals with pain and suffering, there is another category of substantial pain or distress. If one can foresee that a procedure is likely to result in substantial pain or distress, then one ought to be taking additional safeguards. And one of the safeguards pointed out by my noble friend is that before the licence is granted the Secretary of State should not merely depend upon the inspector but should look either to two independent assessors or to the Animal Procedures Committee for advice. I think he has made out his case.
7 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I hope it is in order to welcome back to our deliberations in health and strength the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who returns to us from his recent indisposition.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in what he said. I was shaken by the words of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. The original amendment said that the committee should know about the infliction of pain of substantial severity. The noble Lord said that that was not possible, because there were so many; it went into hundreds and hundreds. But this is a Bill for the protection of animals used for experimental and other purposes. Animals are subjected to substantial severity of pain, I think that must be known by the committee, but there was no assurance from my noble friend that it would know anything at all about it. I take it that that is what is wanted, and I do not think it would complicate the issue. It may be that the Secretary of State will refer it, but he may not and we should see that cases of severe pain are examined by an outside authority which is put there for that express purpose.

1217
My noble friend may prefer to do it in a different way, but so far we have no information at all on what the committee will be allowed to see. I have asked that question and have had no answer at all to it; but something of this sort is required. I shall be glad if my noble friend can express a way in which it should be done, but I think it requires a degree of leverage.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to make a point, because I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said. It seems to me that this is the moment when we put an extra ethical imperative into the Bill. As a whole, as I have said before, we are all agreed that this is a civilised Bill of which we, as civilised people, approve. There will be less pain suffered by animals, yet the cause of medical research is going on. But where a procedure involves risk of substantial pain or distress, this is the moment when we should put in the extra dimension of saying that this is very serious and that not just the number of animals and the amount of suffering weighed against the amount of good is important, but that it actually matters whether any animal, even rat No. 777 out of a particular batch, suffers unnecessarily. This is important.
If we want to go that extra step—and I think it is something of an extra step—beyond the Bill as we have it at the moment, this is an important amendment. I hope that the Government will understand the seriousness of this; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, I hope that if they do not like this amendment then they will put down another one which will have much the same end result but which will have the effect of drawing the line and of focusing attention on the individual suffering of the particular animal.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I, too, should first like to welcome most warmly the return of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to wish him a very speedy recovery, which by the sound of it he has already made.
I understand the general concern which surrounds the work which is the subject of this amendment. The substantial category of severity is the highest category of severity which will be permitted in work carried out under this Bill. Nothing more severe than this will be allowed. It is right, therefore, that we should ensure that applications for work which will involve procedures in this category of severity should be given particularly close scrutiny, and that, of course, is our intention. The House will appreciate that we are in the very early stages of considering the implementation of this Bill. But we are already clear that the assessment by the inspectorate of work of this severity will have to be particularly detailed and rigorous. However, I cannot agree with the spirit of this amendment, which is that in all circumstances where an application for a licence is for work in this severity band my right honourable friend, advised by the professional inspectorate, cannot be trusted to arrive at a sensible decision without further advice from another quarter.
Clause 9 as it stands provides that the Secretary of State must consult an inspector before granting any licence or certificate under the Bill, and that he may consult an assessor, or the Animal Procedures
1218
Committee. This is surely the right balance. Reference to an assessor or to the committee (or to both) is something to be be employed when the Secretary of State or the committee considers that the circumstances warrant it. Even when dealing with work in the substantial severity category, there are likely to be many applications which can be properly decided by the Secretary of State without further reference.
If I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the Secretary of State will ask the committee to report to him on the operation of the project licence system, keeping under review the control of substantial suffering if it has to be allowed in licences. To my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I can only say at the moment that the committee will be asked by the Secretary of State to give him general guidance on the handling of applications for licences in the substantial category.
A requirement for further reference in all circumstances where the substantial severity is likely would be wasteful and would impose a great burden, as well as being wrong in principle. The burden of references is likely to be very onerous. Our best estimate is that some 1,000 project licences for work in the substantial category will need to be considered during the transition to the project licence system, and thereafter at least 500 such applications a year will have to be assessed. Under the system envisaged in the amendment, the burden on assessors, the Animal Procedures Committee and the Home Office would be insupportable. In addition, a statutory requirement of this sort would be a very poor reflection on the high level of professional skill of the inspectorate.
I am sure that the advisory committee will pay particular attention to the category of work involving substantial severity, and my right honourable friend will welcome this as a complement to his own particular scrutiny of such work. But, as I have indicated, neither the committee, potential assessors nor he should be subject to the rigidity and burden which this amendment would introduce. I very much hope that the noble Lord will understand that, while we share his sense of the importance of this type of work, we very much hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the number of noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I should certainly like to join others in welcoming my noble friend Lord Houghton back to our proceedings, although I must say that his intervention on my amendment was rather less welcome and I disagreed with what he had to say.
First, he suggested that the Animal Procedures Committee is not simply an advisory comittee, but of course it is. What is more, as we discussed at length at the Committee stage, not only is it simply an advisory committee but it is an advisory committee which can give advice only on subjects referred to it by the Secretary of State. It may suggest things to the Secretary of State under the Bill as it is drafted, but it may only give advice if the Secretary of State asks it to do so. The Secretary of State may initiate that himself or do so in response to a suggestion from the Animal Procedures Committee. That is why what the noble

1219
Lord said in response to my noble friend on the Front Bench was particularly welcome. Indeed, I think that of everything he said in his reply that was the only bit that I really welcomed, because it got us over that hurdle which we discussed at some length in Committee.
The fact of the matter is that, without a reference from the Secretary of State, the Animal Procedures Committee does not have any standing in this matter. There is nothing in the Bill which gives it the right to give advice on an area, unless it is referred to it by the Secretary of State. So the assurance that my noble friend was given that this area is one that the Secretary of State will refer to the Animal Procedures Committee is extremely important and very welcome.
I can see that the noble Viscount and his department are concerned about the transitional workload and about the 1,000 or so cases that will arise in the transition from the existing system to the system provided by this Bill when it becomes an Act. I accept that that is a factor. If in every one of those 1,000 cases two independent assessors or the Animal Procedures Committee, or whoever, had to be consulted, then it would involve a considerable workload. I myself believe that it would be a justifiable workload to place on the department and upon independent assessors. As the noble Viscount himself said, we are here talking about the very worst category of pain and suffering that the law will allow human beings to inflict on animals in such circumstances.
I find even less weight behind the suggestion that 500 applications per year would involve too much work if each of them were considered by two independent assessors. After all, presumably a number of licence applications not involving pain of substantial severity will be referred to independent assessors. I find it hard to believe that, except in the most esoteric fields of science, there will not be scientists somewhere around the country who will be independent of the person applying for the project licence. I could not really accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Houghton that there could not be found anywhere independent assessors, particularly if one takes into account the suggestion that at least one of the assessors would need to be, and in most cases should be, an expert in the use of alternative methods, of which there are many in this country now.
However, I accept that the noble Viscount has gone some way to meet my concern, in the assurance he gave that this would be an area at which the Animal Procedures Committee will be specifically asked to look. I still remain extremely concerned, as I believe many people outside Parliament are, about the volume of licence applications that the Government expect in this area. I believe that in cases where pain of substantial severity is to be inflicted, Parliament would be justified in imposing additional requirements on the Government. I do not see why there should not be some provisions in this Bill that are inflexible. There are plenty of provisions that already place duties and requirements on the Government. However, my noble friend has extracted an important further assurance from the Government that is welcome. For the time being, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Conditions]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 1, after ("(b)") insert ("a termination condition, that is to say,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following our discussion in Committee on an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I undertook to find a way of signalling more clearly the nature and importance of the condition that Clause 10(2)(b) requires to be attached to all personal licences. That condition is the termination condition that, as Clause 10(2)(b) says, will specify the circumstances,
"in which a protected animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulated procedure must be immediately killed".
The effect of this amendment is to identify as the termination condition the condition described in Clause 10(2)(b). Highlighting the provision in that way will give more emphasis to its nature and purpose and will provide a succinct title by which this important condition will be known. We have not used the word "inviolate" or "inviolable" in the amendment, but I should stress that there are no circumstances in which the condition may be set aside. If an animal is in pain or distress beyond a certain degree without hope of alleviation, its suffering must be brought to an end. That requirement will be included in all licences without exception. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I very much welcome this amendment and I hope that those outside Parliament who are concerned with this matter will accept that adding either the word "inviolate" or "inviolable" would make absolutely no difference. I am sure the noble Lord is right about that. This is an important strengthening of the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister for bringing it forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps now would be a convenient moment to break. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that we do not resume the Report stage before 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order 1985
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington),The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington), rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to raise the rates of statutory sick pay—known as SSP—that employers pay to their employees when they fall sick. The order also increases the earnings thresholds that determine which rate of SSP is payable. Subject to your Lordships' approval, the new rates and earnings levels will come into operation on 6th April 1986.
Under Section 7 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is required to carry out a review of those amounts each year to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices. In the 12 months to October 1985, the general index of retail prices rose by 5.4 per cent. The draft order accordingly provides for the SSP rates and earnings levels to be increased by that amount from April 1986.
As your Lordships will know, there are three rates of SSP. In working out the new rates we have followed normal social security practice in rounding to the nearest five pence. The earnings thresholds covered by the order have been rounded down to the nearest 50 pence. Again, this is normal practice and is the same rule that is used in setting the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions liability. The lower earnings threshold, below which no SSP is payable, is not covered by this order. This is tied by the Act to the lower-earnings limit for Class 1 contributions which will be £38 from 6th April 1986.
The effect of the order is that from next April employees with average earnings of £74.50 per week or more will qualify for the new standard weekly rate of SSP of £46.75. Those whose earnings are less than £74.50 but not less than £55.50 will qualify for SSP of £39.20. And employees who earn at least £38 but less than £55.50 will be entitled to SSP of £31.60. Those new rates represent increases of £2.40, £2 and £1.60 respectively over the present rates.
As usual, the draft order makes transitional provision for periods of entitlement to SSP that are running when the up-rating takes effect. This will ensure that any employee who would otherwise have been taken out of his existing earnings band by the increase in the earnings threshold nevertheless continues to receive the same level of SSP—standard, middle or lower rate—as before. All employees getting SSP at the time the up-rating takes place will thus receive an increase in the amount payable to them.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, April 1986 will also herald other changes in SSP. Under legislation passed in the Social Security Act 1985, an employer's maximum liability for paying SSP will be increased from eight weeks to 28 weeks. This has resulted in some other changes in the present rules and procedures for paying SSP that have been developed following consultations we had with employers and interested organisations last year. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that a completely revised Employers Guide to Statutory Sick Pay, taking account of these changes, was sent to all employers last October to enable them to make the necessary preparations for these changes. The new rates in the draft order before us will therefore be the first ones to apply to the revised scheme.
Details of the new rates approved by Parliament will be sent to all employers shortly, at the same time as the new national insurance contribution rate tables, which also take effect from April. The new rates are also published in a revised version of leaflet NI208, which is available from the Department of Health and Social Security.
The draft order provides for the SSP rates to keep pace with the rise in the general level of prices since the
1222
last review and I feel sure it will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for telling the House about these increases in statutory sick pay. There is no division between us about them. We might wish that they were even bigger increases but we accept that they are made in compliance with the legislation before us.
I hope that, within the rules of order, I may ask a few questions about the working of the Act to which the noble Baroness herself referred. I have read many observations from small employers about their administrative difficulties in coping with the Act. Does the department have any response from employers about problems with which it can deal? The other obvious question which occurs is that although these rates are going up, does that mean that income tax payments—because statutory sick payments are subject to income tax—will also go up? In fact, does this mean that the net increase is much less than the increase which we have in front of us tonight?
I am sure that all of us who deal with problems from the public know that one of the most frequent grievances is that the Government give you more with one hand and take it away with the other. To what extent can one estimate that people who are getting this increase in statutory sick pay will thereby be brought into the income tax net and end up very little better off and certainly not as well off as we wish them to be with these increases?
I also note that the length of time—and I know I must be in order in referring to this point, because the Minister referred to it—of eight weeks' payment period is to be raised to 28 weeks. That seems to be a very long time. It is, I believe, about seven months. Why was 28 weeks picked out? Is there any magic about the figure of 28? That is puzzling me and I ask purely for information. Why not 25, 26, 15 or 16? I hope that we can find out more about that.
Does the department have any figures about people who are on SSP benefit and who are appealing for supplementary benefit in increasing, or decreasing, numbers? I think that would be a good index as to the way in which the Act is working. If we find that more people are having to go on to supplementary benefit it would give us some cause for anxiety. There must be many people for whom the statutory sick pay is less than they would be getting on the old-fashioned sickness benefit, because that was not liable to income tax or to national insurance contributions. If the Minister is not able to give that information now I shall understand, because it is complicated. However, I ask as a matter of general interest.
Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made towards more occupational sick pay schemes? I have been reading through earlier debates in this House and it has been said over and over again that the Government want to encourage more occupational sick pay schemes. I must ask when the most recent figures became available, because yesterday in another place figures were given of a survey on occupational

1223
pension schemes suggesting that 80 per cent. of employees were covered in such schemes; but the Minister had to say that the survey was based on figures from 1977. That is a long time ago and I feel that we ought to be given more up-to-date information on that aspect.
I must put another question to the Minister. Have the Government any information which satisfies them that part-time workers and seasonal workers are not suffering any deprivation under this scheme? I ask that because it is very difficult for such workers and their employers to work on the basis of the present legislation.
I assure the Minister that I have read the pamphlet for employers on statutory sick pay which sets out the questions very clearly. I asked on an earlier occasion what protection workers have against employers who do not seem to be paying enough statutory sick pay or are not paying it at the right time. I understand from my very careful reading of the documentation that if an adjudication officer, a social security appeal tribunal or a social security commissioner issues a formal decision that a person is entitled to statutory sick pay then the DHSS can enforce payments—or can it not? Or does the claimant have to take the employer to court? How many such cases have there been of non-payment or of inferior payments? What sort of delay is there? What happens to the sick person during the delay? Does he receive any money from the DHSS in the interim?
I raised this question on a previous occasion and the Minister, as kind as ever, sent me an undated letter. Incidentally, I wish her office would date letters, because it messes up my filing system when it does not. I have this undated letter in which the noble Minister writes:
"If an employee thinks he has been underpaid statutory sick pay, he does not … need to take his employer to the county court. If he cannot sort the matter out with his employer, he has a right to refer the question to the independent adjudicating authorities … It is that decision which, if it is neither complied with nor appealed against, is enforceable through the county court as a matter of last resort. In such rare circumstances, the DHSS will provide the employee with his court expenses, and will help and advise him on the procedures to follow. But these will be very rare cases; we know of none so far".
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether, her department having known none so far at this undated point in time, there have been more recent cases and whether the people who have appealed have had the help which she promises them. Of course, there are some absolutely fundamental problems about this situation, which we shall not go into tonight because I would be out of order in trying to raise questions about whether it makes sense to have three rates of statutory sick pay and only one rate of sickness benefit, and why we have statutory sick pay subject to income tax and national insurance contributions but sickness benefit not so subject. But I hope there will be another occasion on which we can go into these problems in greater depth.
7.30 p.m.
I should be interested to know if there have been offences committed by employers under this Act, and whether the department has any information about the working of the Act in so far as it concerns
1224
employees who feel that something has gone wrong with their receipt of statutory sick pay. It is often people who are ill and perhaps not very well informed about their rights who fall into difficulties of this kind.
So far as tonight is concerned, I accept that it is good that there is to be some increase, but again I must make it clear to the Minister that I want to know what the net gain is for people who are on sick leave, considering that the increase in sickness benefit might well be reduced by their sudden liability to income tax. I also want to know how the legislation is working in terms of the fulfilment by employers of all their obligations and the right of employees to combat cases where they feel they have been disadvantaged.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her explanation of this order. As she made very clear, it provides a routine rise in benefit to take account of inflation, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, indicated, to that extent it is not controversial, though we on these Benches have also criticised the concept of the three rates. However, the order provides the opportunity to ask one or two questions. It is an opportunity of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has taken advantage, and I should like very briefly to reinforce one or two of the questions which she put and perhaps to put another.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, when she comes to reply, can say from the current monitoring being carried out by her department how many mistakes are in fact being made, and what percentage is getting less than entitlement. Earlier figures which we had were rather disturbing in that respect. There also appears to be evidence that small employers cannot get the statutory sick pay calculations right, and the National Federation of Citizens Advice Bureaux were particularly worried about this in their submission to the social security review.
I should like to ask: if family credit as proposed in the Fowler White Paper is to be paid also through the pay packet, will small employers be able to cope? I should also be glad if the noble Baroness would tell me whether the Government are confident that the move to 28 weeks from 8 weeks which will take place in April, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, will go smoothly.
Finally, some beneficiaries will be on ordinary national insurance sickness benefit even after April, and the 5 per cent. abatement imposed in 1980 still applies to sickness benefit. I wonder when the Government will withdraw the abatement, as has been done for invalidity benefit. While we seek the answers to these questions, we do not oppose approval being given to this order by the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very glad that this has been comparatively such a painless operation. If I may endeavour to answer together the questions raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I think that would be the simplest course. To start with, how well are the employers coping with SSP? The staff from the Department of Health and Social Security local offices have been visiting all employers to check that the

1225
present scheme has been understood and is working properly. In the main, employers have taken SSP on board most successfully and are operating the scheme very well. Though some technical mistakes are being made, these are on aspects where improvements can be expected as employers become more used to the rules. In the majority of cases checked, the right amount of SSP has been paid.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that we expect the transition to 28 weeks to go smoothly. With regard to small employers finding the scheme difficult to operate—which was a point raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks—despite any so-called criticism, we have received very little complaint from employers about difficulties in operating SSP. We made considerable efforts to keep the scheme as simple as possible and DHSS staff and inspectors, who visit employers regularly, are available to give advice on any problems. Our experience has been that where an employer has run into difficulties in operating any aspect of SSP, once the procedures have been explained to him there have not been any further problems.
On the question of the amount of increases in SSP being less because of taxation, the effect of tax on the increases will vary from case to case. So I am afraid there is no simple answer that I can give to the noble Baroness. Why choose 28 weeks? Because that is the period covered by the state scheme of sickness benefit which is designed generally to cover short-term sickness; after 28 weeks of sickness the state invalidity benefit, which is a long-term benefit, comes into effect instead, as the noble Baroness will know.
As regards the effect of SSP on the numbers of people having to claim supplementary benefit when they are sick, the answer to that point is that during sickness supplementary benefit is available subject to the normal rules. SSP and occupational sick pay are not treated as earnings but as resources to be set against need. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Baroness that there is no indication that claims to supplementary benefit have increased because of SSP. The noble Baroness said that the survey of occupational sick pay is very out-of-date—I think that 1977 was the date she mentioned—and we certainly plan to update this information as soon as we can.
With regard to the business of the courts and the difficulty that employees will be at the mercy of their employers, there is an existing procedure which an employee can use if he has not been paid SSP or thinks that the amount paid is wrong and he cannot sort out the matter with his employer. The employee can ask the DHSS to arrange for an adjudication officer's decision on his SSP entitlement. A copy of the officer's decision goes to the employee and to the employer and either of them can appeal against it in the usual way. This is explained to employees in the leaflet Check Your Right to Statutory Sick Pay, NI244, and to employers in the Employers' Guide to SSP, NI227.
There is little evidence to suggest that employees are having to resort to court action to get SSP. We do not consider that an increase in liability will lead to an increase in disputes over entitlement. So far as the department knows there are only two such cases. The employee is able under the usual rules to claim supplementary benefit. Part-time and seasonal
1226
workers will be entitled to SSP on the same basis as other employees provided they are working for an employer under a contract of service. We have no evidence that they are experiencing difficulties. If they are not entitled to SSP, they will of course be able to claim sickness or supplementary benefit.
The effect of the extension on employees when they fall sick means that they will get 28 weeks' SSP from their employer before moving on to state invalidity benefit. The indications are that many employees prefer SSP to sickness benefit because they get all their money from one source (their employer) rather than two (their employer and the DHSS).
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about wrong payments by employers. The latest information is that the overall percentage of wrong payments discovered by DHSS inspectors is running at about 28 per cent. That may seem high, but I must emphasise that we are concentrating our efforts on visits to those employers termed as high risk—that is, those whom the inspector noted as having made mistakes during the first phase of visits. We know that we can leave responsible employers to pay SSP efficiently and that they will contact us if they have a problem. I should also make it clear that the mistakes are mainly technical and the situation will improve as employers become more accustomed to the procedures. The 28 per cent. error rate is made up of 16 per cent. overpayments and 12 per cent. underpayments.
Current proposals would mean that employers need to make larger deductions from monthly remittances over much longer periods where family credit is concerned. There are existing procedures for a direct refund to the employer who cannot get a full self-refund, and we would extend that arrangement to future schemes.
My last point deals with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, concerning abatement of sickness benefit. The Government are committed to bringing sickness benefit into tax. When that occurs, and that will be a matter for the Chancellor, the Government will look into the question of restoring the 5 per cent. abatement at that time. I believe that I have answered all the noble Lord's questions, which is a rare record. He will no doubt correct me if I have not.
In conclusion, I wish your Lordships a happy New Year, and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.44 to 8 p.m.]

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert—
(" ( ) The conditions of all project licences shall include a condition to the effect that all animals subjected to a regulated

1227
procedure likely to result in substantial pain or distress or death shall be subject to surveillance and monitoring throughout each 24 hour period.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again we come back to something that we discussed at Committee stage but in a more restricted area. Noble Lords will remember that at Committee stage we had a number of amendments down to this clause of the Bill aimed at ensuring that all animals that were subject to experimental procedures were kept under watch and monitored and a number of other approaches were used to try to see that animals were not left, particularly through the night or at weekends, suffering and dying without anyone being aware of what was happening. A number of objections were raised, by the Government in particular, to the different amendments. The suggestion was made that the amendments were too sweeping, that they would be impractical and so on.
Having reconsidered the matter, a number of us felt that there was still a need to ensure that, in particular circumstances, the Bill made certain that animals were not left to die without anyone being conscious of it, or left in distress without anyone being around to alleviate that distress.
I am not sure whether this amendment is the right way to go about it. But it is a genuine attempt to meet objections raised at Committee stage, to try to make the requirement much more specific and therefore limited, and to ensure that animals subject to a procedure which will result in substantial pain or distress, or death—for example, animals-that are being subjected to an LD.50 test—would be subject to surveillance and monitoring throughout the night, over the weekend, and so on.
I accept that there will be animals, like Lord Glenarthur's dog, that would be happier left to sleep all night without being disturbed. But there will be circumstances when the analogy with one's dog is not apt. I do not believe that the noble Lord would wish to subject his dog to an LD.50 test any more than I would mine. In those circumstances, it is important that there is someone, not necessarily in the room, who has the animals under surveillance and who is monitoring the climatic conditions, the heat, the humidity and so on. This can be done outside the laboratory or the room.
It has been pointed out to me that in most modern laboratories, certainly in the pharmaceutical industry—this is my own experience having visited such a laboratory—environmental monitoring of such matters as temperature and humidity would be carried out on a 24-hour basis. It is clearly not possible to monitor an animal's physiological state by mechanical means. It is therefore important to insist that where animals are likely to die or, as this amendment says, to suffer very severely, someone should have to be on the premises throughout the night, during a 24-hour period, all week. That is what this amendment would achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Melchett. Once again, he is drawing a distinction between procedures that are likely to lead to pain or distress or those that are likely to lead to substantial pain or distress. I am
1228
sure that the public at large draw that distinction between pain and suffering and substantial pain and suffering. My noble friend suggested Amendment No. 8 to meet this difficulty. That was not acceptable to the House, although we did receive a valuable assurance from the Minister. However, here again, another safeguard is suggested by my noble friend. It is that where you can foresee that the procedure is likely to result in substantial pain or distress, or death, there ought to be surveillance and there ought to be monitoring throughout each 24-hour period.
My noble friend is right to draw the distinction. It may be one weakness of the Bill that it does not draw a distinction between pain and substantial pain. I would have thought, as a layman, that when we approach substantial pain we are arriving at the threshold—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, shakes his head in disapproval—which should trigger off certain safeguards. On that basis, I support fully my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this amendment was discussed in Committee. It has quite reasonably been brought back at this stage. I have visited a number of pharmaceutical companies. I have seen animals that are most likely to need 24-hour surveillance such as monkeys and marmosets, some of which come from climates very different from our own. On a recent visit to a pharmaceutical company with two honourable friends from another place, this was one of the questions that we put to those who were showing us around. In fact, this company has 24-hour surveillance.
In any large organisation such as the Services, there is always a duty officer. Under Clause 9 there are sufficient provisions for this procedure to be carried out. My noble friend can perhaps confirm my belief that the Home Office inspector himself or herself could call at any time within the 24 hours to see that all is well. I believe that there are already within Clause 9 the guidelines for adequate protection here.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support the amendment; but I would like to see it strengthened by not saying merely,
"likely to result in substantial pain or distress",
but "liable" to result in substantial pain. If we only say "likely", that lets off the person who may say, "Well, I appreciated there was a chance of substantial pain but I did not think it was likely, and so I am not in breach of this subsection". If substantial pain is contemplated at all, it is covered by the word "liable". I hope that the amendment can be strengthened in this way.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am in mild pain now. I am not a cry baby and I am not making a fuss about it. I had an operation on my foot last week to remove a mole. I do not find it other than painful to stand on it at this moment. The type of milksop attitude—I am sorry to use such a word—which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is advocating has no counterpart in nature.
When I first involved myself in this business, I did not particularly want to do so. I had seen experiments on animals; I did not particularly like them. But

1229
somebody had to take this on. Who am I to keep my hands permanently clean while other people are getting theirs dirty? I took the job on therefore but with a pledge. I said that I would never defend in public for the sake of solidarity with my colleagues what I would condemn in private. I also said that I would never defend in public what I had not seen myself; and this has taken me round all sorts of laboratories. I have patted smoking dogs—they have licked my hands; they have wagged their tails at me. I knew quite a lot of smoking dogs at one time.
I shall say a few words about a visit I made to Rentokil. What was the object of the exercise? It was to invent a poison for rats which was less poisonous to dogs than the current one was. Let the animal lovers think about the kind of strange moral dilemma we are in when one is trying to do something like that. They were doing what your Lordships talk about so much and of which—with the greatest respect to your Lordships—you have seen so little. They were doing LD.50 tests. I went round in the afternoon with the individual in charge. He showed me a large cage of rats, 50 per cent. of whom were going to die. At this time in the afternoon, he picked them out to an assistant, saying, "That one, that one, and that one. Kill them quickly". He said "I know enough about rats and the symptoms which they exhibit when they are poisoned to know that those will not survive the night". The others would have survived the night, and probably did.
We live in a most anomalous and strange world in which we have double standards of value for almost everything under the sun. You may poison as many rats as you like in the sewers as pests provided that you do not contravene the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act which specifies certain poisons which may not be used. Throughout the entire agricultural economy a very tasty mixture of earthworms and strychnine is put in mole tunnels to poison moles—and strychnine is a very painful poison from which to die. Are we not therefore looking for too much in the way of counsels of perfection in trying to strengthen in the Bill in this way the idea that one must, under all circumstances, have 24-hour round-the-clock management of animals which might be in pain or distress? It is emptying the baby out with the bath water. I do not have 24-hour surveillance to make sure that I am not in distress. I have to cope as best I can with my own life. Sometimes I am suffering from influenza and in very great distress indeed but I see the thing through. As I say, I do not shed any tears about it.
I think that this is one of those typical counsels of perfection drafted by people who have no experience in this field at all, and who have never seen any of these experiments. I believe that this is merely imposing an extra cost on research with no corresponding advantage to the animals whatsoever.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I cannot accept the milksop accusation from the noble Earl. We must point out straightaway that the noble Earl has himself decided to have an operation on his foot and is suffering pain as a consequence. We are talking about animals who presumably did not themselves choose to suffer extreme pain but for our convenience they are doing so. I do not think that those two arguments should be mixed up together.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would give way, do they consent to being caught in a rat trap?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I do not see why we have to bring that argument in either. We are talking about animals which are undergoing scientific experimentation which will be to the benefit of human beings. All of us who are taking part in this debate have presumably put ourselves to some kind of a test where we accept that pain has to be inflicted on animals. Say, for example, that our own child is suffering from an illness, and we know that great progress has been made in overcoming the illness as a result of animal experimentation. That is the only test that one can put to oneself and accept that animals are put to extreme pain.
However, having said that, surely it is quite right to do everything we can in this Bill to ensure that animals do not have to endure unnecessary pain. I should like to think that it was possible for someone to be there for 24 hours a day in order to see that an animal who is suffering intolerable pain should be killed or dealt with in some other way to relieve that unnecessary pain. I think it is quite right that we should contribute this to the Bill. We owe it to the public at large who care very much about that. I think it is wrong to talk about milksops. I will not accept that from the noble Earl.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we entirely accept the need for proper and adequate supervision of animals at times when they are exposed to a significant risk of pain, distress or other kinds of harm. Where supervision is required we shall insist upon it. However, I am afraid that the amendment, while laudable in its aim, is not an appropriate way of regulating these matters. It is however a subject on which we accept the need for more explicit guidance to those carrying out procedures.
I should first of all explain briefly the general framework for the care and supervision of animals. Establishments must be designated by means of a certificate. The certificate conditions will lay down the general requirements relating to all establishments, and any which are specific to the place in question. Of crucial importance will be the roles of the named person responsible for day-to-day care of the animals, and of the veterinary surgeon who must be available to give help or advice at any time—if necessary, urgently in the middle of the night. These are new provisions; the requirements for the named person and the vet formalise the existing arrangements, but for the first time these arrangements will be given statutory effect. Responsibility for caring for animals does not stop there, however. The care of an individual animal subject to a scientific procedure is first and foremost the responsibility of the personal licensee engaged on the work. And caring for the animal does not simply mean reacting to events and putting right things which go wrong: it also means planning ahead to minimise the risk of suffering or harm. That is part of the force of Clause 10(2)(a) in the Bill, which specifies that there shall be a condition in every personal licence requiring the holder to take precautions to prevent or reduce to the minimum consistent with the purposes of the

1231
authorised procedures any pain, distress or discomfort to the animals concerned.
In order to carry out procedures in accordance with that condition, so as to minimise the risk of suffering, it is necessary to plan ahead, to ensure, for example, that the personal licensee is not going to have to leave the laboratory at a critical period when his animal is most likely to need his attention. A licensee who failed to do this would quite clearly be in breach of the condition. So the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, I suggest, is already contained in the Bill in this provision in Clause 10(2)(a).
However, the amendment is more specific. Let us examine what happens in practice. There are many situations in which an animal is at risk of suffering. What the degree of risk is can often not be qualified in advance: indeed, to assess the risk of suffering is very often the purpose of research. Nevertheless, through common sense and through the experience and knowledge of those engaged in this work it is possible to know that, for example, the risk of suffering will be high at a certain point, and a great deal less at some other stage. We may be talking about the same procedure, but the risk will vary. Evidently an animal subject to general anaesthesia needs to be watched all the time, just as a human patient would. Again, an animal recovering from substantial surgery is extremely vulnerable to suffering and indeed to all kinds of adverse effects: complications might set in, wounds might not heal properly, infection may occur. Obviously close attendance on the animal during this period is essential and fundamental.
There are, of course, procedures where the risk of suffering exists over a longer period. An example is some lethality testing, such as the noble Earl described. There are certain precautions which can be taken to minimise the risk of an animal suffering excessively at a time when help is least readily available. That is precisely the point which the noble Lord described in relation to rat poison. At the beginning of a lethality test very little may be known about the likely effects of the substance being tested. Therefore, you do not begin an LD.50 test, for example, immediately before a weekend. You administer the first dose at a stage when it is possible to pay close attention to the initial effects of the test substance on the animal concerned. After that, regular monitoring is clearly necessary but constant attention is not required once an expected pattern of effects has emerged.
These are routine, sensible steps taken by researchers as a matter of course. The exact requirements vary from case to case. Where there is a high risk of suffering the inspectors insist on an appropriately high level of supervision. There are critical periods in the recovery phase in some procedures where close attendance is essential. At other stages, the risk will have reduced and the level of supervision can be relaxed accordingly. The inspectors will expect at least the basic requirement of daily monitoring to be observed. I fear that the effect of the amendment would be to deny the flexibility which is inherent in it. A licensee who fails in his duty of care towards an animal which is obviously at risk of substantial suffering will be exposed to the severest sanctions.
1232
We are very conscious of the quite understandable concern about the whole question of the care and supervision of animals. It is a subject upon which more could and should be said in the draft guidance note. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare has written to us recently with some suggestions as to how this point might be amplified in the guidance. We are happy to adopt those suggestions. The draft guidance will be revised so as to make it clear to licensees that they should always plan their work so that they are present in the laboratory during the critical recovery period from a procedure and the phases when the animal is most likely to be in pain or distressed.
We shall expect those responsible for monitoring the animals at times when the personal licensee is not present to be able to recognise unexpected problems and to know how to deal with them or else summon assistance. As I have said, this will be backed up by the detailed requirements of the inspectors in particular cases and, I have no doubt, by the good sense and judgment of researchers themselves. I reassure my noble friend Lord Auckland, who asked whether the Home Office inspector can call at any time, that the answer is, "Yes, he can".
In conclusion, I would remind your Lordships again of the provision in Clause 10(2)(a): it requires all personal licensees to take precautions to prevent or minimise suffering. That is a very important requirement and we intend it to be applied very seriously. The measures which I have outlined are part of the spirit of that. I hope that what I have said will have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to begin by commenting on what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said in the debate on this amendment, although it was not entirely about it. First, I am well aware that the noble Earl has been involved in this subject for a very long time. However, to suggest that those who drafted the amendment, or others, know nothing about the subject is, if I may say so, a little arrogant. There are many other people as well as the noble Earl, both in this House and outside it, who know just as much as the noble Earl about animal experimentation and who are quite capable of drafting amendments to the Bill. The fact that a number of amendments have been met one way or another by the Government during the course of the Bill's passage through this House gives some support to that suggestion.
Secondly, although the noble Earl has been involved in this subject for some time, I find it extraordinary that he is as insensitive as he is to the views of people who hold a different attitude from his about experimentation on animals. His story about patting pathetic smoking beagles who gratefully wagged their tails and licked his hands, I found deeply offensive. I find it strange that the noble Earl does not recognise that those kinds of remarks are deeply offensive not only to some people in this House at least, but to a great many more outside it.
Thirdly, the logic of suggesting that, because it is legal for rats to be trapped or, despite the long campaign against it, for moles to be poisoned by strychnine, random cruelty to other animals in other circumstances is thereby justified is something which I

1233
find to be an extraordinary and quite unacceptable assertion.
I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said. In sharp contrast, I found the noble Lord's remarks extremely welcome and I am grateful to him for the trouble which he took in answering in such detail the points raised by the amendment and, indeed, the very welcome assurances he gave about the steps which the Government are taking to meet some of these legitimate concerns. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord for recognising that they are legitimate concerns. I was particularly interested to hear that UFAW—the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare—has written on this point and that the Government are to respond positively to what it has suggested. That meets a great many of my concerns which led me to put down the amendment.
I accept, and was grateful for, what the noble Lord said in great detail about the need for some flexibility, and the different circumstances both as to particular cases and particular times, and about the varying degree of supervision and surveillance that will be needed. That was a good argument. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In all circumstances where a licensee is aware that an animal is in severe pain or severe distress which cannot be alleviated, he shall 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.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of Amendment No. 9 and its acceptance by your Lordships' House, I do not intend to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The conditions of a project licence shall, unless the Secretary of State considers that an exception is justified, include a condition to the effect that no cat or dog shall be used under a licence unless it has been bred at a designated breeding establishment and shall, unless the Secretary of State considers that an exception is justified, include a condition to the effect that no other protected animal of a description specified in Schedule 2 to this Act shall be used under a licence unless it has been bred at a designated breeding establishment or obtained from a designated supplying establishment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we again return to a matter which was discussed at considerable length in Committee. Again it is a matter about which there is very great public concern; namely, the feeling about the use of lost or stolen pet dogs and cats in animal experimentation. The Bill will introduce some measure of control which would, it is hoped by the Government at least, lead to some diminution of this problem, if it exists on any great scale.
The concern which I expressed in Committee, and which a number of other noble Lords echoed, is that at present, as the Bill is drafted, and as the mechanisms under the Bill will be operated, it does not seem to me
1234
that there is any guarantee that the use of stolen pet cats and dogs could be detected. I take that view because, of course, tracing where any particular cat or dog came from and proving its origin—either where it was born and from what parentage, or its origin if it has been bought or it is claimed to have been bought from some third party—is in practice impossible. There is no system of licensing or registering individual cats and dogs. It is extremely difficult to recognise them, particularly after they have been experimented on and killed, which is the condition in which, if ever, they are likely to be identified at all. If it does happen, it is almost impossible to detect.
However, as noble Lords will be aware, this is a subject about which there is great public consternation. In Committee I think that our argument—and we had a lengthy one—came down to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may grant an exemption from the general provisions which are laid down in Clause 10. The amendment tries to ensure that the discretion of the Secretary of State to grant an exemption, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, attached great importance in Committee, is retained.
Therefore, the first point which is different about this amendment as against anything we discussed in Committee is that the Secretary of State retains complete discretion to issue an exception if he feels that it is justified. However, if the Secretary of State does not issue such an exception, any cat or dog used for procedures under the Bill would have to come from a licensed breeding establishment. The difference between that effect of the amendment and what is in the Bill is that at the moment a dog or cat could come from either a breeding or a supplying establishment, and it would be via a supplying establishment that a stolen pet could, I suppose, be "laundered"—which is probably the right phrase to use.
I simply do not believe that the checks which will be imposed under the licensing provisions on supplying establishments have any hope whatever of detecting the passage of a stolen pet dog or pet cat through a supplying establishment. All that would be needed is for some third party, who is a party to the criminal offence, to say that he had bred a dog or a cat or that he had sold it or acquired it legitimately, and there would be nothing more that the Home Office, the police or anyone else could do to identify the problem.
8.30 p.m.
The justification for suggesting that some tightening of the Bill in this respect is required seems to me to be twofold. First, there is widespread public fear and suspicion that this actually happens. Unfortunately, cats and dogs are regularly lost, as all of us know who visit places like Battersea Dogs' Home or who have seen stray cats on the streets. Many of them will not be captured and used for animal experimentation; they will die, be found by someone and adopted, as I have done—in the last few years I have adopted at least two cats—or they will end up in a dogs' home and either be taken by someone as a pet or killed.
Nevertheless, many people believe that when their pet disappears, it is taken for experimentation, and that causes great distress and suffering to many people.

1235
I believe that that is one justification for saying that we should make the law as tight as is reasonable in this respect.
Secondly, there have been some examples where stolen cats and dogs have been identified. This does not happen very often because, as I have said, the chances of a crime of this sort being detected are extremely slim. I have been given details of some cases by the RSPCA inspectorate where cats and dogs have been found to have been stolen and used in animal experiments, and people have been convicted for offences and in some cases sent to prison or fined. Among the cases which I have before me at present, one involves the supplying of at least five cats to Birmingham hospitals for experimentation. There is another case of a university establishment where someone identified a pet dog and was able to recover it before experiments were conducted on it.
Therefore, despite the very great difficulty of ever detecting this offence, there are some examples of it happening. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will know, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals receives a very large number of inquiries—some 45,000 each year—concerning missing animals, and underlying many of those inquiries is a real fear—a terror to some people—that their pet has gone to a laboratory to be experimented upon and to suffer.
Having studied very carefully what was said by all those at the Committee stage, I hope that this amendment (I dare say that it is not perfectly drafted) attempts to overcome the difficulties which the Government saw in the way of tightening up the protection for pet cats and dogs, while at the same time offering much greater reassurance than the Bill does at present to pet owners who fear for the future of their own particular pet. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I may be able to be very brief as regards this amendment and hence reassure your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made clear his concern to ensure that, so far as possible, the dogs and cats supplied to laboratories for use in licensed experimental procedures are purpose-bred and not stolen pets. The Government have the utmost sympathy for that objective, and indeed that is one of the reasons why we have included the requirement now contained in Clause 10(3).
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested in his amendment a means by which the safeguard of Clause 10(3) may be tightened. We agree with the noble Lord that it would be appropriate to make a more specific provision in respect of cats and dogs. As the noble Lord foreshadowed, there are some aspects of the drafting of the amendment which we would wish to consider further, and we will do so with a view to bringing forward an amendment on this point at the next stage of the Bill. I hope that with this assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I find myself rather surprised at speaking in this way, but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider very carefully before introducing an amendment at the
1236
next stage. It seems to me that the Bill is not about our feelings about our pets, but has a different purpose altogether. It is to make new provision for the protection of animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes. I find it very difficult to understand how our feelings about pets are involved in the protection of animals used for experimental or other purposes. Although I heard what the noble Lord the Minister said, I believe it would be very much better if we limited the Bill to the purpose for which it was introduced.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was to prevent cats and dogs being used for scientific experiments. That is the whole argument that we had in Committee. I agree with the noble Lord that we do not want the wrong animals to end up in laboratories. I had hoped that that would be welcomed by your Lordships. I hope that the right reverend Prelate now understands what I am driving at.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister's remarks are a great reassurance to the House. However, perhaps I may be permitted to say that when he is considering the amendment which he intends to introduce, I hope he will not think it satisfactory to say, for instance, that a supply establishment can obtain an animal, provided that it has no reason to suppose it is a stolen pet. I hope that the amendment, if it is upon those lines, will go further and say that no such animal shall be accepted by a supply establishment unless the establishment is certain, in so far as certainty can apply in any human affairs, that this animal has not come from a source which could mean that it was someone's stolen pet. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has spoken eloquently about the terrible anxieties of elderly and lonely people whose only friend, or whose closest friend, is their pet animal. They have these terrible fears and nightmares when their pets go astray, believing that they have ended up in laboratories.
This is a very important matter. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—who I hope will shortly recover from his painful foot—thinks that I am speaking again in milksop terms; it is unfortunate that whenever the noble Earl and I take part in a debate I am always reminded of Kipling's poem about the sons of Cain:
"Wherever they be
They will never agree,
Jubal and Tubal Cain".
Whether or not I am a milksop, I regard this as a very important matter indeed.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I spoke on this particular amendment at the Committee stage and I expressed anxieties passed on to me by other pet owners. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will keep to the sort of formula which my noble friend has established in his amendment. This is a very real worry. I know of it simply from hearsay; the RSPCA know it for fact, although it is a very difficult fact to prove. They know that many pets find their way into laboratories. Having spoken at the Committee stage on this subject, I very much welcome what the

1237
Minister has said and I hope that his amendment will more or less be in the same light as the one before us at the moment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. With the leave of the House, may I say that we certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the amendment must go further than belief in good faith that the animal is not a stolen pet. The noble Lord's point is well made.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I very much welcome what the noble Lord has said, and I feel sorry for him, having made such an excellent response to something about which there was genuine concern, then to be criticised and complained to. I have had that experience myself occasionally on the Front Bench, and it is rather disappointing. I can assure him for myself and for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and many other animal welfare organisations, and literally millions of people in this country, that we are all grateful to him for what he has said this evening.
I disagreed with the right reverend Prelate at Second Reading on something, and I could not disagree with him more in what he said this evening. The Bill has a clause, if not more than one clause, on breeding and supplying establishments. This amendment that I have suggested, the spirit of which the Government have accepted, is on all fours with the provisions of the Bill, which are designed to ensure that animals that are used for experimental purposes come from legitimate sources. The Government have taken a major step forward, and it is welcome. I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Availability of information to the public
.—(1) The Secretary of State may provide for the availability to the public, subject to any condition that he considers appropriate, and to payment of such reasonable fees for furnishing copies as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, of information supplied for the purposes of section 5, 6 and 7.
(2) In determining any provision to be made by virtue of this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of persons supplying information to which that provision would relate.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to take this briefly because we had some debate at Committee stage about the provisions which affect the Animal Procedures Committee, or its members, and their right to disclose information, or at least, as the Bill is currently drafted, a complete prohibition on them from disclosing any information. It seemed to me that there must be some precedents in other legislation of a similar nature for a rather more open attitude to disclosing information to the public than is the case in this Bill.
In particular I looked at the Food and Environment Protection Bill which passed through Parliament last year and is now the Act of 1985. In one part that Act deals with the introduction of a new statutory system of controls on the use of pesticides. It provides for manufacturers who have developed a new pesticide of some sort to furnish the results of research—much of it no doubt using animals—and the detailed formula
1238
with which the pesticide is made up, as well as a range of other information on, for example, its environmental effects and its effects on human beings, and so on. All of this, of course, is subject to great commercial confidentiality in many circumstances; and that information has to be given to a statutory body which then determines whether a licence will be given for the new pesticide to be used.
We had many debates about the extent to which the information under that Bill should be made available to the public. There was clearly a conflict between the need for strict commercial secrecy, on the one hand, because if another manufacturer found out that you were about to launch a new pesticide with a particular formulation he could rapidly copy it, and indeed copy the test data on which you planned to get clearance for it; and, on the other hand, there is a legitimate public concern to know in some detail what tests have been done on the new pesticide, what the results were, the environmental effects, and so on. This new clause is taken straight from the Food and Environment Protection Act, and it was a provision drafted by the Government as a result of pressure in your Lordships' House to enable the Secretary of State, in that case the Minister of Agriculture, to provide information to the public where it was appropriate to do so.
It seems to me that, in the case of experiments on animals, for quite understandable reasons, and particularly in the light of recent violent (and I find them wholly unacceptable and inexcusable) actions against scientists involved in animal experimentation, there has been a natural desire on the part of those involved in experimentation to keep the whole process as secret as possible. Often the unfortunate consequence is that, because of that lack of information, subsequent ignorance and subsequent suspicion of those not privy to the information increases by leaps and bounds. The two sides get driven further and further apart and deeper and deeper into the trenches. There is little doubt that that was largely the case until recently in the field of animal experimentation. It is largely due to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Houghton and others—and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is included in this—that we have started to move away from those positions, and this Bill is one of the results of that.
However, I do not think that we are going to continue that movement towards a greater understanding of what is happening, and hopefully eventually a greater trust between people of opposing views, unless more information about what is going on, and why it is going on, is made publicly available. This amendment would not require any information to be made public. It lays no duties on the Secretary of State. As was the case with test information on pesticides, it simply gives the Secretary of State power to make things available to the public subject to the interests of the people who provided the information in the first place. It seems to me that the interests of people applying for a project licence, for example, would be not identical but similar to the interests of a commercial company applying for the clearance of a new pesticide product.
I hope that the amendment will not only be acceptable but will also be seen as a positive attempt to move this debate forward in a more constructive way

1239
than has sometimes been the case in the past. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to encourage the Secretary of State to provide for a fee if he wished, copies of information supplied to him in support of applications made under Clauses 5, 6 or 7; that is, applications for project licences (but not personal licences) or for certificates of designation of scientific procedure, breeding or supplying establishments. The Secretary of State would be able to put a condition on the disclosure, and in deciding what to disclose he would, by virtue of the proposed subsection (2), be obliged to take into account the interests of the people who supplied the information; that is, the applicants. The effect is that the Secretary of State may provide this information to the public on request: he has some discretion in the matter, but there is a clear presumption in favour of disclosure.
I respect the strong feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who put his name to this amendment, on this point about openness. There is a commitment in the Bill itself to open to public scrutiny the way in which the controls over live animal research are operated, the standards that are applied, and the nature of the work being done. The Secretary of State will publish guidance on the way in which he will exercise his powers. He will publish annual statistics, and will issue or approve codes of practice. The Animal Procedures Committee will submit an annual report on its work, and that, too, will be published and laid before Parliament.
All this will provide a fuller and more detailed public view of the system of controls than has been available until now. I hope very much that it may lead to an improvement in the quality and style of the public debate about animal experimentation, just as I hope that the passage of this Bill and the public debate surrounding it is helping to increase public awareness and understanding. The amendment goes much further than this. It is based on a fundamental assumption about the way the controls work—the only way they can work—and I have to oppose it most strongly.
The information which applicants for licences and certificates provide to the Secretary of State has always been, and will continue to be, supplied on a confidential basis. It will include details of research plans which are, in effect, commercial details. It is commercial "in confidence" material. It will also include details relating to named individuals, their places of work, the kind of research they are engaged on, even the accommodation of the animals and the layout of the rooms. Some of this information will be extremely sensitive. Much of it would help to provide ready targets for those bent on abusing the cause of animal welfare by their use of violence and intimidation. It is a real threat. I need hardly remind your Lordships of that real and continuing threat: only the other day the planting of a number of explosive devices highlighted the danger posed by these criminal elements.
1240
This information is supplied in the trust that it will be seen only by those who need to see it; those who are charged under the law with determining applications for licences and certificates. If there were any question about that, there is no doubt that the quality of applications and the relationship between applicants and inspectors, on which so much depends, would suffer immeasurably. There is no justification for a public right of access to this information. It is not as if knowledge of these details might directly affect the health and welfare of members of the public or the quality of their environment.
We try to help the public as much as possible. The Home Office deals with thousands of letters each year from members of the public on the subject of animal welfare. If there were a requirement to supply every person who asked for it with copies of this or that information, and to decide in each case whether disclosure was acceptable, the department's task would become more or less impossible. This amendment is impracticable and unacceptable. I have to say that if it were to be accepted, it would be likely to destroy the trust which the scientific community has placed in our system of controls, and upon which their entire effectiveness depends. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of that argument and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not entirely accept the force of the argument because, as is often the case in trying to draft an amendment which does not place a firm duty on the Secretary of State, one nevertheless receives an answer that suggests that that is what the amendment actually does and that the Secretary of State would have sufficient discretion not to be drawn into providing the sort of details, of which the noble Lord spoke, in response to inquiries. I am afraid that in this country we still live in an extremely secretive society compared to many other democracies and in particular the United States. I regret that, for I believe it lowers the standard of public debate about important issues such as this.
I accept that, as the noble Lord says, a measure of this sort would in practice be unacceptable to the scientific community. I take the noble Lord's word for that. I have no wish to try to make the Bill unacceptable in that way, because I want to see it improved and reach the statute book. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Re-use of protected animals]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert ("except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover and the consent of the Secretary of State has been obtained.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment on re-use which was well received by some of the Committee and by the Minister of State. I am extremely grateful to the Government for proposing an amendment on the same subject as mine. I understand that though these two amendments are slightly different in form, their

1241
effect is the same, and the Government's version is, perhaps not surprisingly, preferred by the draftsmen.
The purpose of my amendment is to allow an animal which has undergone some procedure or series of procedures and which otherwise would be killed or put down to be killed in a way which would save another animal being used in another experiment. The animal to be used would be anaesthetised, an acute surgical experiment would be done—there would have to be a separate project licence for that experiment—and the animal would be killed by a further lethal dose of anaesthetic without any recovery. My object in this amendment is to reduce the numbers of animals used.
Because we recognise the possibility of improper re-use, this is to be made subject to the specific consent in each case of the Secretary of State. This was a point that was suggested by the noble Lord the Minister during our Committee deliberations before Christmas. It is also indirectly incorporated in the Minister's amendment.
I emphasise that no extra suffering is involved in what I propose, since the animal on re-use will be anaesthetised and not allowed to recover from the anaesthetic. There were misgivings in Committee both about the length of time between use and re-use and the length of time that an animal might remain alive under anaesthetic, and both of these matters would be subject to the direct control of the Secretary of State. He would also be able to satisfy himself that the animal to be re-used was an animal which would otherwise be destroyed.
I can understand the hesitation about accepting such a proposal, but it is one—I stress this—which is designed to reduce the number of animals used in experiments. Admittedly, I do not hold out a very large reduction, but we should surely achieve a reduction even if it is a small one. I believe that the fact that specific permission is to be sought for this re-use will add a procedural barrier and quite specific control beyond the existing necessity for an appropriate project licence. I do not think that re-use will be entered into lightly, but it may on occasion be important, especially on work on species which are in short supply.
However, I believe it will be for the convenience of the House this evening if, with permission, I withdraw Amendment No. 14 as it stands. I look forward to the proposing by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, of Amendment No. 15.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken at some length on the amendment. Is he moving the amendment?
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur move Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert ("; or
(c) the animal is under general anaesthesia throughout the further procedures and not allowed to recover consciousness.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has foreshadowed a little of what I intended to say. When we debated the re-use of animals at the Committee stage I promised to consider
1242
the matter further, saying that I had sympathy with the proposal which the noble Lord had raised. This amendment proposes that an animal which has previously been used in regulated procedures for any purpose, and for any of those procedures has been given an anaesthetic, may be re-used in further regulated precedures for a different purpose—but only both with the consent of the Secretary of State and provided that the animal is under general anaesthesia throughout the further procedures and not allowed to recover consciousness.
As I see it, there are three sound advantages in this proposal. Some of them were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. The first advantage is that it will be tightly controlled. It would only be allowed if the Secretary of State consented to it. He would certainly not consent to it if the animal, having recovered from the first operation, was then going to be kept for days or, even worse, for years, before the second, terminal operation is started. That would be quite unacceptable, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, rightly drew attention to it when we discussed this matter earlier. If the Secretary of State did give his consent, he would give it subject to any conditions he thought were necessary or desirable in the interests of the animal.
The second advantage is that during the second and final operation the animal would not suffer any pain or distress at all. That of course is the effect of the requirement that during the further procedures the animal must be under general anaesthesia all the time and not allowed to recover consciousness. This Bill is about pain and suffering of animals used in scientific procedures, but the terms of this amendment are tightly drawn so as to ensure, by this means, that no pain and no suffering would be caused.
The third advantage—a very significant one—is that the numbers of animals that have to be used in procedures would be reduced. We all agree that we want to reduce the unnecessary use of animals in procedures. We referred to it on earlier amendments this evening. In this instance the numbers involved would probably not be very large. What is important is that we are involving here a principle, and it is the principle which I believe is extremely important. It underpins the Bill and is a central element of our approach.
In 1984, there were 1,919 primates used in experiments where anaesthesia was used for part of the experiment. In some of those, 1,900 primates could have been re-used and it would not have made a large dent in the statistics of the total number of animals used but it could have reduced notably the number of primates that were used. I really believe that any reduction in the use of animals is worth striving for and in the way that I have described they would not be capable of feeling any pain; they would be fully anaesthetised. What is suggested here seems a reasonable approach to the need that we described earlier to cut down on the use of animals.
9 p.m.
I know too that it is a particularly emotive subject, although I believe that some of what is said on the matter is perhaps rather irrational or draws in rather irrational remarks. I say with considerable conviction

1243
that those who work on animals are thoroughly responsible people. They are as concerned as we are to see both that the animals are not used unnecessarily and that suffering is not caused unnecessarily. Suffering would not be caused here. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must say that I am astonished at the turn of events. It is evident that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has spiked everybody's guns. I want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that in no way is his amendment acceptable to those of us who were part of the collaboration on this consensus Bill. The Minister is fully aware of that. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has not said a single word about the history of this matter. Anybody would think that it had just come up, that the debate during the Committee stage was the beginning of something and that he had promised to give further thought to it and led the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, to repeat his amendment.
May I remind the House that this started with a White Paper of May 1983. The contents of the White Paper of May 1983 were certainly the subject of consultation but they were not the subject of collaboration. That stage had not come. What happened in May 1983 was that the Government were in a great hurry to get out a White Paper before the election to indicate their credibility as a Government to fulfil a pledge given at the general election of 1979. They were already four years behind and they wanted to make sure that they could continue seeking the confidence of the electorate on the basis that they were still going to do something.
The reaction to the May 1983 White Paper was swift and sure in regard to this particular matter. The noble Lord knows full well that the reaction of widespread public opinion and indignation was against the two respects proposed in the White Paper of May 1983, which a lot of people thought were retrogressive measures going back to 1876. And this was one of them.
With what result? With the result that after the period of collaboration began, when the prospects of getting a consensus Bill emerged, and when the prospects of getting any Bill at all depended on a degree of consensus and collaboration with responsible elements both in the animal welfare and in the professional movements relating to animals, we got a new White Paper, in May 1985. The Government at that time said that there had been widespread misunderstanding about the earlier proposals for the re-use of animals that had been used once in experiments. I will quote just one sentence regarding what the Home Secretary now proposes:
"The Home Secretary now proposes however, having considered the representations made to him, to continue the present prohibition on the reuse of animals anaesthetised and allowed to recover consciousness in a previous procedure. The use of surgically prepared animals will continue to be allowed".
He continues:
"Animals which have been used in procedures under anaesthesia need not necessarily be killed at the end of the procedure. If they have regained normal or near normal health they may, for instance, be returned to the farm or the wild or be found suitable homes as pets, depending on the species".
1244
In short, the provisions of the 1876 Act in this particular regard were to be maintained. That was clearly understood, firmly established and, for my part, irrevocable at this particular stage.
I know the arguments but the fact is that there is a reaction to a matter of this kind—which is being revived, incidentally, by a piece that appeared in the Guardian newspaper only two days ago—which has already started. This proposal is going into highly contentious politics very soon indeed—as soon as this Bill arrives in another place. In these circumstances it is absolutely essential from the point of view of continued goodwill and collaboration that this be dropped here and now. Let us have discussions about this for the future. Let us see whether we can rationalise the situation; let us see whether we can get proposals for the re-use of animals, if that becomes a feasible political proposition, and consider under what conditions it may be done. Let us have the whole story about the second use of animals in laboratories.
Let us also discuss what I would call the proprietory element in this situation. To whom do these animals belong? They are entrusted to those who are using them by the public, by Parliament, largely financed by the public. In my opinion, the scientists do not have proprietory rights over the animals that are in their hands. They can only do with them what the law will allow them to do. The law represents public opinion and may not be rational, but it has nothing to do with the scientists, if they have pointed out the anomalies of the existing situation, that ethical considerations, emotive considerations, may well be paramount politically.
We have just done something about dogs and cats which is a concession to sentiment about dogs and cats. Public sentiment about dogs and cats existed very deeply at a time when they cared nothing about primates. They did not give a damn about monkeys: they cared for cats and dogs. We have broadened the basis of our protection for different species since then, but we do have to cope with the irrational and the emotional response of public opinion. Politics is based on irrational and emotional responses to public opinion. We are all subject to it and we all understand it very well.
Therefore I must ask that, whatever the conditions upon which this amendment may be withdrawn, it should be withdrawn. It should not be pressed. If it is pressed then certainly I shall divide the House and make my position, and I hope the position of others, absolutely clear on this subject. I believe that it would be a great mistake for the Bill to be changed back to what the Government originally intended and departed from under the pressure of public opinion. Now, at this hour of night and at this stage of the Bill, we are asked to reinstate it. That is not on, my Lords, and I sincerely hope that we may come to an understanding: otherwise we had better go on for a long time because this is not going to be disposed of by any shuffling around.
So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to go into conference on this matter. I have approached this Bill with probably more rational feelings than I have ever approached a Bill on animals before because I want to see business done. We want to end this period of emotional exhaustion which brings no tangible

1245
results, no additional protection and no change in the law. Now we can get a change in the law, and we are after it and we want it. We do not want it held up. So I am bound to say that if there is a political fight on this the other place is where it should take place, not here. We have kept party politics out of this Bill throughout its several stages in your Lordships' House. We have not had a single Divison on this Bill so far. Party politics have not entered into it and we have got along in a spirit of co-operation and exhaustive examination, but goodwill. And now we are on the brink of breaking it all up for the sake of something which, from a political and public point of view, is a game not worth the candle.
However irrational it may be and however difficult it may be to justify, even in ethical terms, let us at least refrain from trying to reverse the understanding that was reached in collaboration on the consensus Bill; let us refrain from doing that now. If we can consider it and if there is a desire to consider it in calmer circumstances, that might well be done before the Bill reaches another place. But I very strongly appeal to the Government to meet this situation. I cannot rest if we are going to get into an unholy muddle, with misunderstandings and ill-feeling created all round. I want to know why this situation arises in this form, after spending two and a half hours with the Minister this morning.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am delighted to find myself wholly at one with my noble friend. I will not say "for a change" but it has not always been the case on this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said in introducing the amendment, I had some very strong objections to the move that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, made at Committee stage to reintroduce the concept of re-use, after it had been dropped from the second White Paper. As my noble friend has said, it really was one of the two major changes which started to make it possible for legislation to be introduced which would not be virulently and consistently opposed by a large number of people in both Houses of Parliament. I really think it would be a great pity, as my noble friend has said, to start to re-open the whole question of whether the Bill can proceed unopposed, for example, on Second Reading in another place. I firmly believe that if this amendment were to be moved into the Bill that would be one of the consequences.
There are still a large number of very severe worries I would have about a measure of this sort being introduced into the Bill; for example, questions such as the length of time between one procedure and another. If the amendment were to be written into the Bill I would want to see cast-iron guarantees, if not in the Bill then in some other absolutely cast-iron form, about the length of time between the two procedures and about the condition of the animal between the two procedures. If, for example, the animal was suffering at all from the first procedure, no re-use could possibly be contemplated. I think it is very dubious indeed to suggest that even administering an anaesthetic would cause no suffering to an animal which has already been through one procedure. I think it is very likely to cause severe suffering. It is not just a question of giving the anaesthetic but it is all the handling and the keeping of the animal, and so on, which would go on before that.
1246
Of course one of the major reasons why the abolition of re-use was so welcomed was because many people felt there would be animals which would be capable of being kept as pets, living out the rest of their lives relatively free, happy and peaceful after going through the suffering of one experiment. That would be removed, as I see it, by the amendment as it stands.
It is a pity—and it may be that if it had been slightly earlier in the evening one or two of us would have risen from our seats—that we did not have this debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, which he withdrew at greater length than I have ever heard an amendment withdrawn before. I hope that in those circumstances, and in view particularly of what my noble friend Lord Houghton has said, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, might agree and also advise the Government that it might be better not to press this amendment into the Bill at this stage but to have some discussion, because on his initiative we are entering onto extremely dangerous ground which may see the end of everyone's efforts on this Bill come to naught.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am happy on this occasion to find myself in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I should like to add one point to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. I do not think it is a purely irrational feeling of revulsion on the part of the public against this. As I indicated last time in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, this is really a matter concerned with the dignity of animals. It is derogatory to their dignity to keep them in a kind of suspended animation before further procedures are carried out. There is an ethical point here, not just an irrational point, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will bear that in mind in responding.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we adopt the powerful argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Houghton, without descending into details about whether any further amendments ought or ought not to be canvassed. My noble friend has delivered a powerful warning to the Government that, if they insist on this amendment, they are moving into a critical and highly contentious area of policy.
My noble friend appears to have been taken by surprise with this amendment. As I understood him, he had an entirely different understanding of the Government's position earlier in the day. So I think we are entitled to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there has been another misunderstanding about what may have occurred in a discussion earlier in the day. Will he tell the House what discussions have taken place in the course of today about this amendment? The Minister shakes his head.
I am not sure of the procedures of the House, and whether my noble friend Lord Houghton can come back on this. But we know that my noble friend Lord Houghton has worked to achieve an agreement, a consensus, between the scientists and the animal welfare workers. In arriving at a consensus, there has to be a measure of give and take, but it appears to me from what my noble friend has said that the Government may be withdrawing from a position

1247
which they adopted after the publication of the White Paper—indeed, a position which, apparently, they adopted earlier today.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, though this is not my amendment I should be perfectly content were the Government to withdraw this amendment as it stands. We could discuss the matter at greater length later on, and possibly a more improved, detailed version could be brought forward at Third Reading either by myself or by the Government.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had a useful debate on a subject which I recognise is one which generates a great deal of concern. I also recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who, after all, has been very much the driving force behind the Bill and has been an enormous help to the Government—that what we are trying to achieve is a consensus. That has been the whole history of the Bill, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is aware of it. All the amendments to the Bill have been with general agreement, although it is quite clear that we have not found general agreement on this proposal.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on the question of whether or not there has been some misunderstanding, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, tabled an amendment at Committee with which I expressed some sympathy, and this is the result of that sympathy. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sadly could not be with us on that day may be part of the reason why the views that have been expressed this evening were not expressed so forcibly then.
In view of what has been said for and against the amendment—and some very sincere views have been expressed by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, when he did not move Amendment No. 14—I sense that it may be prudent not to press this amendment today. The last thing that I want to do is raise the temperature of this debate. While it is of course for another place to consider this aspect, I am only too aware that your Lordships' House is full of a great deal of expertise and wisdom and therefore that there is no reason why this matter should not be discussed here. Indeed, this particular amendment has been discussed, albeit briefly.
There may be a possibility of achieving agreement. I should like to take up the generous suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, which the noble Lords, Lord Adrian and Lord Melchett, share, that before the next stage all those concerned—the noble Lords, Lord Houghton, Lord Adrian, Lord Melchett, and others (and that can be discussed)—might meet to explore common ground and try to establish whether there is some acceptable way forward designed to meet the concerns that I expressed when introducing this amendment.
There are real concerns. I realise that there are other sides to this argument. I share much of the concern that has been so widely expressed on this subject, and it is important that we should get it right. If your Lordships, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in particular, are content that such a meeting would be a
1248
suitable and sensible way forward, then I shall gladly arrange such a meeting and will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Prohibition of public displays]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("in") and insert ("as an exhibition to the general").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment designed to remove a possible ambiguity in Clause 16(1), which provides that:
"No person shall carry out any regulated procedure in public or carry out any such procedure which is shown live on television for general reception".
The object is to prohibit the deliberate public exhibition of procedures on live animals that are controlled by the Bill. There is a comparable provision in Section 6 of the 1876 Act, prohibiting the exhibition to the general public of painful experiments.
During consultation with scientific bodies on the Bill, it has been brought to our attention that the use of the term "in public" without further qualification might have the unintended effect of placing some legitimate work outside the law. A considerable amount of valuable scientific work is carried out in the wild—for example, by the Nature Conservancy Council—and this will sometimes need to be licensed under the Bill. However, it will not always be possible to ensure that members of the general public do not accidentally observe such work. I should add that what the public might accidentally witness in the wild would not be anything severe or distressing but is likely, rather, to be work of a straightforward, monitoring kind. An example might be the regular blood sampling of birds to monitor constitutional status.
It was never our intention in Clause 16 to penalise a licensee carrying out legitimate work that might be accidentally overseen in that way. The offence is of course aimed at the person who deliberately performs procedures as an exhibition to the public. The amendment before your Lordships would remove any trace of doubt about the intention of Clause 16(1), without weakening it in any way, by substituting for the words "in public" the more specific expression,
"as an exhibition to the general public".
That is a clearer and more accurate way of putting it, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Neuromuscular blocking agents]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
("(c) use an anaesthetic during a procedure where a neuromuscular blocking agent is used unless he is fully competent to achieve and maintain total anaesthesia.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister said, as reported in Hansard, col. 764, on 17th December:

1249
"Permission to administer an anaesthetic during a procedure where neuromuscular blocking agents are used will only be granted to licensees who are fully competent to achieve and maintain the appropriate level of anaesthesia."
When the Minister said that, he really met the main point that we were trying to argue at the time. We feel that that statement needs to be in the Bill. Therefore, I have tabled, with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, an amendment using what amount to the Minister's own words in the hope that we may get them in the Bill.
The only possible open question is whether, in the last line of the amendment, there should be the word "total" or the words "the appropriate level of", which were the words used by the Minister. I include the word "total" because it goes further, but it could be withdrawn and the alternative substituted at the next stage if necessary. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a worry—I know that it is a quite common worry—about the safeguards applying to the use of neuromuscular blocking agents; that is to say, substances which are used to prevent normal muscular reflexes from interfering with some surgical procedures. When the noble Lord raised this question with an amendment in Committee I explained the substantial safeguards which are already in the Bill to ensure that procedures involving the use of these substances are carried out only by appropriately qualified licensees and subject to tight conditions, as the noble' Lord quoted.
First, Clause 17(a) prohibits the use of neuromuscular blocking agents unless there is specific authority in both the personal and project licences. That means that the precise circumstances in which the blocking agents are to be used, including the use of anaesthesia, will have been the subject of detailed scrutiny. Secondly, Clause 17(b) provides that neuromuscular blocking agents may never be used as a substitute for an anaesthetic. Thirdly, a standard condition in the personal licence—I refer your Lordhips to paragraph B.12 in Annex C to the draft guidance note—makes provision, where necessary, for the inspector to be notified of the intended use of substances of this kind by a first-time applicant. The inspector can then attend the procedure if he thinks fit, or offer advice, or make further checks on what is going to be done.
This amendment is intended to add another safeguard, but it is not necessary. The amendment requires a person administering an anaesthetic during a procedure where neuromuscular blocking agents are used to be fully competent to achieve and maintain total anaesthesia. Under the Bill the administration of an anaesthetic will for the first time be a regulated procedure; and all personal licensees who intend to use that technique will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are qualified to do so. There will thus be no question of a person using an anaesthetic in the way described unless he has proved his competence to achieve and maintain the level of anaesthesia appropriate to the procedure.
I should also draw attention to the effect of the amendment in making the administration of an anaesthetic in these circumstances by an incompetent person an offence, by virtue of Clause 22(3). If the
1250
offence relates to an unlicensed person, there is no need for it: by acting without the authority of a licence he is already committing an offence under Section 3 and is quite rightly liable to the much more substantial penalties prescribed in Clause 22(1). If, however, it is a properly licensed person who is doing these things without being fully competent then, in that unlikely event, the fault would lie not with the licensee but with the Secretary of State. It would surely be oppressive to expose a licensee to prosecution in these circumstances.
The Government are fully aware of the anxieties that have been expressed about the use of neuromuscular blocking agents. For that reason we have provided, in this area, some of the tightest safeguards in the Bill. They will be applied most rigorously. I do hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Lord that there is no need to pursue his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Minister has produced extremely cogent arguments as to why this amendment is unnecessary. I did not detect in what he said any real argument as to why there would be any harm in passing it; I did not detect any argument that the amendment itself would do any harm. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Minister is right in saying that in this area there are very considerable safeguards. I shall therefore beg the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, but not with any particular guarantee that others may not take it up on another occasion and maybe in another place. I do not regard this argument as having been settled; but I think that, for this evening, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 19 [The Animal Procedures Committee]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert ("; and in making appointments to the Committee the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the interests of animal welfare are adequately represented.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will welcome this amendment, which is the result of the strong feeling voiced in Committee that there should be an express reference in Clause 19 to the contribution of those concerned with animal welfare to the work of the Animal Procedures Committee. We have been impressed by the argument that the balance in Clause 19, as it stands, is expressed in rather negative terms. We agree that there should be a specific and positive reference in the clause to the interests of animal welfare.
The amendment is designed to remedy that shortcoming. It does not attempt to put a number on the representation of animal welfare interests, since it would clearly be a misconception to suggest that animal welfare was a concern of only certain members of the committee. But it is intended that this provision, which requires the Secretary of State in appointing the committee to see that animal welfare interests are adequately represented, should assure members of animal welfare groups of a distinct voice on the new

1251
committee. The new provision would also encompass the sort of appointment, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham suggested in Committee, of someone with a background in moral or ethical philosophy. I am grateful to him for his most helpful letter.
The Animal Procedures Committee will have a fundamental role to play under the new legislation. It must combine the best advice from all perspectives, and the clause which establishes it in the Bill must announce clearly what kind of body this is to be. This amendment will enhance the definition of the committee and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I welcome this amendment very much. I think it is admirable in every way. I wonder whether I may take a liberty with the noble Lord? I made two suggestions in the course of the Committee stage and I should like to refer to them if I may for a moment. The first question I asked was this: what exactly do the words "biological subject" include? Do they include, for instance, a professor who studies animal behaviour? I think they probably do, and I only ask that question.
There is, however, a more important point that I should like to make. I wonder whether the Government have tied themselves up a little too tight in the definitions under subsections (3) and (4). I do not propose to say much about that except to suggest that a chairman should be free of any qualifications. The qualifications of a chairman are quite unique. He need not be clever or know about the subject. It is a perfectly unique qualification that he should possess. I suggest that it is in the interests of the Secretary of State to be absolutely free to appoint anyone to be chairman, without considering subsections (3) and (4).
Perhaps I may add that for reasons of mathematics it may be better to change the number 11 into 12, because it divides more easily into two-thirds. Three into 11 is rather a difficult sum. I throw that out to the noble Lord because I think it may make the committee stronger, which I believe is the intention of the House, and leave the Secretary of State with a slightly freer hand.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's amendment without asking him any awkward questions. It is a significant and important amendment, and I am again grateful to him for bringing it forward at this stage. While I am on my feet I would add that I agree with him that it would be undesirable to put a number on those who are to represent the interests of animal welfare. This is the best way of ensuring that the concerns that a number of us expressed in Committee are met. I think that the amendment is just right, and I congratulate the Government on it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as I brought this point up strongly in Committee I should also like to thank the Minister very much. I welcome the amendment. The balance of the Committee will now be established. At the same time it will have a link with ordinary members of the public, who will feel that they
1252
have an understanding with someone on the Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I simply say that I am grateful to all those who have responded so warmly to the amendment. The two questions of my noble friend Lord Selkirk perhaps go slightly wide of the amendment, but I give him the assurance that the term "biological" includes a professor of animal behaviour, which I hope is the point about which he is concerned. He raised an important point about the chairman. The chairman can be anyone; obviously someone competent, but not necessarily with qualifications that others may need. I was most interested to hear his comments, and I should like to study them further. Whether the 11 should be extended to 12 may be worth considering. It is a valuable point, and I shall certainly take it away and look at it. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Functions of the Committee]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert ("and unnecessary use in scientific procedures.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need be only brief in moving this amendment. Clause 20(2), as it stands, requires the Animal Procedures Committee in considering any matter to
"have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering".
This is intended to sum up the balance which underlies this whole Bill and to charge the committee with having regard to that balance or combination of interests. The term "avoidable suffering" is meant to be interpreted widely. However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made the point that the formulation
"the protection of animals against avoidable suffering"
would not cover in all respects the desirable goal of avoiding the use of animals in scientific procedures. The noble Lord suggested that this should be more clearly highlighted.
We have reflected on the noble Lord's proposition and believe that the statement in Clause 20(2) could indeed be improved by making an express reference of this kind. The result is this amendment, which adds to the existing provision a requirement for the committee to have regard to the protection of animals against unnecessary use in regulated procedures. The equally important concerns of the legitimate requirements of science and industry, and the protection of animals against avoidable suffering in the widest sense, remain in the provision in their original form.
I believe this amendment strengthens the provision in Clause 20(2) by signalling more clearly what the full range of proper concerns of the Animal Procedures Committee should be. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to our attention the need for such a change. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment as well, although slightly less

1253
enthusiastically. I certainly do not oppose it, and I believe that it represents a considerable improvement on the provisions that were previously contained in Clause 20. I still think that it would be worth giving further thought to the matter. And, no doubt, another place will be doing that in any event.
The wording of the amendment that I moved at Committee stage, as the noble Lord has mentioned, was that the Animal Procedures Committee should have regard to the need to reduce and, where practical, eliminate the use of animals in regulated procedures. I do not wish to go into too much detail, but I believe that that amendment had a rather more forward-looking and positive note about it than the Government amendment. It is, however, the case that the Government amendment goes a great deal further than what is in the Bill at the moment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward the amendment. It is a considerable improvement. I hope, however, that some further thought will be given to it to see whether it cannot be improved a little more.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Guidance, codes of practice and statistics]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("may issue") and insert ("shall issue one or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I say at once that I intend to withdraw this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and myself, and also my noble friends who have added their names to the amendment, when we originally tabled it had not seen a letter that the Government sent to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on 13th January, in which they commented on the debate that had taken place on two amendments when we were trying to replace "may" with "shall" at the Committee stage. I had a success on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, came up against some difficulties. We thought that we had overcome them. However, on studying what the Government have said, both of us recognise, as no doubt all noble Lords will recognise, that we have not overcome them.
It may help if I explain this, although if I am wrong the noble Lord will correct me, and we can leave the matter there. It is my understanding that under Clause 21 the Government will wish to be able, if it is appropriate, under subsection (2), simply to approve codes issued by other persons and not necessarily issue any codes of practice themselves.
I still believe, as I think also does the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it would be better if subsection (2) made it clear that the Secretary of State will either issue a code of practice himself or approve a code issued by other people. What are needed therefore are two "shalls" and an "or", rather than the "shall issue one or more" that we have at the moment. It will then he clear that the Secretary of State will either issue a code of practice or approve one issued by other people. We have not got it quite right. Unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak, having moved the amendment and having had the Question put to the House, I shall immediately withdraw it so that we stick within the procedure this time.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position in speaking to something that will be withdrawn. I appreciate that the wording may not be correct. It is, however, desirable that there should be freedom of information and that the codes that are used should be published, not least because there is some around concerning the Bill. Unless the facts are known, things are made very difficult.
The whole Bill does not make sense without codes. We therefore need to know about the codes. I do not see that this imposes any restriction on the Secretary of State's action or discretion. I see that it is important that he should keep his discretion. I find it hard to see what damage would be done. I appreciate that the amendment could be differently worded and that it may have to be withdrawn as it stands. Secondly, so far as the proposed subsections (6) and (7) are concerned—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate, we have not yet reached Amendment No. 21. We are on Amendment No. 20.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert—
(" (5) The Secretary of State shall cause any information published or codes issued or reused under this section to be printed and distributed, and may make such arrangements as he thinks fit for its distribution, including causing copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such reasonable price as the Secretary of State may determine.
(6) A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code issued under this section shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind.
(7) In all criminal proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence: and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a more substantial amendment and we can take a little longer on it. We had a considerable debate at Committee stage on the nature of the codes and, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, their importance under a Bill of this sort. It is an enabling Bill where all the detail is contained in the codes of practice either issued by the Home Office, as a number of them will be, or produced by other people and endorsed or approved by the Secretary of State.
On thinking about what had been said on this at Committee stage, it seemed to me that it would be useful to look at another Act of Parliament, the Food and Environment Protection Act, where exactly the same legislative framework was used. It was an enabling measure. All the details of the controls—in that case on pesticides—were to be contained in a number of codes of practice.
It seems to me that there are two issues taken together in this amendment which are particularly important where codes of practice are relied on to the extent that they are in this Bill. First, Parliament should insist that the codes of practice will be available to the public, albeit if necessary at a cost. Secondly, because the codes of practice do not form part of the statute law it should be perfectly clear on the face of the Bill what part they play, if any, in criminal proceedings taken under the Bill.
I dare say that the provisions contained in subsections (5), (6) and (7) are to some extent certainly within the Secretary of State's power; and as far as subsection (7) is concerned, within the power of the court. But it was felt necessary by the Government and by the parliamentary draftsmen in the Food and Environment Protection Bill to put these provisions in what is now that Act of Parliament. I think it is right that they are in the Act of Parliament, because it is then clear to everyone exactly what is the force of the codes of practice.
First, subsection (5) would make clear that the codes of practice and so on should be made available to the public. There would be no question of their not being made available. That would be clear on the face of the Bill. Secondly—and I accept the force of this argument raised in Committee—codes of practice, because they are general guidance and not specific requirements—should not, if they are broken, in themselves involve the committing of a criminal offence. Thirdly, because they are very important, because they are intended to be taken seriously and act as guidance, and to be observed by those experimenting on animals under this Bill, if the code of practice appears to be relevant to a court in trying a case which arises under the Bill it should be clear to everyone in advance that the code of practice can be taken into account in those proceedings. It seems to me that all those are important points. I hope that they will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the proposed subsection (7) in this amendment. This is one of that class of amendments which have come to be colloquially known as trigger clauses; that is to say, clauses which make codes of practice where they are relevant admissible in evidence in civil criminal proceedings.
Yesterday we had a debate on codes of practice initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In that debate I took the opportunity to mention that in our Committee stage I had moved an amendment in similar terms to subsection (7) in this amendment: a trigger clause of that kind. I said that in Committee I had received a good deal of sympathy for my amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, but that subsequently he had considered the matter and had written to me in great detail a letter for which I was extremely grateful. In that letter he set out at some length his reasons for thinking that such a trigger clause was not appropriate to this Bill.
I do not need to trouble your Lordships with the reasons of the noble Lord, but he then came to the following sentence:
"In addition it is in any case unnecessary"—
1256
that is to say, my amendment—
'since there is nothing in the Bill which bars the admission of codes of practice [as] evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, and if they are relevant to an issue arising during proceedings they could be taken in evidence".
I said that I supposed that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was laying down a general principle that all codes of practice authorised by an Act of Parliament were admissible, wherever relevant, in civil or criminal proceedings before any court. I went on to say that if that general principle existed, then it was positively confusing to have particular trigger clauses in particular Bills, like this Bill or like the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (or Act as it is now), because that would simply confuse people. People would think that only in those cases where trigger clauses existed were the codes of practice to be admissible in evidence. They would argue that if some other Act allowed codes of practice but contained no trigger clause, then those codes surely should not be given in evidence because if Parliament had so intended, it would have introduced a trigger clause into the Act. So I said that there was a confusion.
The debate yesterday was answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He referred to the point which I had raised; however, he then said that he was very sorry but he was reluctant to enter into a field which was already occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. Therefore, this gives me the opportunity to raise the matter again.
I gave the noble Lord as much notice as I could that I was going to take this course. However, the debate took place only yesterday. I believe that this is an important matter which has led to confusion. I hope that I shall be able to receive an answer from the noble Lord, if not now at rather short notice, as soon as may be, because this really is a matter which needs to be cleared up.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having spoken about this matter under the wrong amendment, but I hope that I shall be allowed to take up a little of your Lordships' time to make two points. First, under subsection (5) it seems to me essential in a Bill which is really dependent upon codes of procedure, and without which the Bill makes no sense at all, that justice not only should be done, but should be seen to be done. I cannot see—and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will tell us—what objection there can possibly be. It does not—as I was beginning to say earlier—impinge on the discretion of the Secretary of State at all; it is merely a question of publishing what is the case. I should have thought that that would help people to have confidence in the Bill.
As regards subsections (6) and (7), as I pointed out in Committee, precisely the same kind of provision applies to animals in intensive farming under the Farming (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. I find it very difficult to see why this kind of provision should be included on behalf of animals in intensive farming, but not when it comes to laboratory experiments. As I see it, there seems to be a kind of lack of logic in having it in the one case and not in the other. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will either make a strong case or perhaps be open to accepting this amendment, because it does not seem to me to impinge upon any

1257
of the principles involved. We have happily co-operated to this point. I should be very interested to hear what answer he makes in objection to the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I fully support the three subsections of the amendment. Of course the codes of practice should be published. Indeed, I should have thought that their very purpose requires that they be published. The people who will be affected by the code must have the means of knowing its contents. This amendment does not require any particular form of publication. That is a matter to be left to the Secretary of State.
However, on the issue of publication, surely the amendment must be right. We would accept that the failure to observe the provisions of the code should not of itself render a person liable to prosecution. However, we must know what status the code enjoys. Three times since five o'clock the Minister has referred to and has relied on the code of practice. He relied on the code of practice when we discussed Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 11. Therefore, we are entitled to ask: what status does it enjoy? Are the courts to pay any regard to this code?
As the Bill stands, the code will have no legal effect. That is unsatisfactory. This particular amendment is modelled on the provisions to be found in a number of Acts. In particular, I would refer to the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 for the welfare of the livestock sector—not animals used for experimentation, but animals in the livestock sector. I could refer the House to the Health and Safety at Work Act which was passed for the protection of persons in work. Why do we not have a similar provision for the protection of animals used for experimentation?
Yesterday in your Lordships' House there was an important discussion about the codes of practice authorised by other Acts of Parliament. There is an admixture of codes, but the principle of this amendment is, as I understand yesterday's debate, to be found in most of the codes. This is the common type of provision. Therefore, if the Minister is unwilling at present to accept this amendment, I think that he must convince the House why this sector is an exception. I invite the Minister to have another look at this amendment in the light of the important debate in your Lordships' House yesterday.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, the text of this amendment is taken from Section 17 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which provides for the issue of codes of practice to guide the suppliers and users of pesticides in meeting their statutory obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is certainly extremely inventive, if that is not too strong a word, in spotting correspondences between all kinds of legislation and transplanting bits from one statute to another. However, I am afraid that the operation is not always a success. What may be necessary in a section dealing with codes of practice about pesticides cannot be assumed to be appropriate in a provision dealing with information and codes of practice concerned in various different ways with the use of animals in scientific procedures.
1258
To begin with, the Secretary of State is to be required by the new subsection (5) to print and distribute the various documents he issues under this clause, and to arrange for its sale to the general public. I should make it quite clear that of course the Secretary of State will ensure that these things are done. The annual statistics provided for in Clause 21(3) are already published and distributed for sale each year by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. We shall ensure that the guidance note—this important note to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred, and to which he correctly said I had referred on more than one occasion because it is an important adjunct to the Bill that we are discussing—will be distributed in its final form to all those who need to use it. We shall see that it is available for purchase by members of the public if they wish to do so. The codes of practice now being prepared by the Royal Society, which we hope to adopt, will be printed and distributed for sale by the originators. The Secretary of State is not intending to do that for them.
10 p.m.
Whatever is published, issued or approved under Section 21 will be available to all those who need it and to members of the public who are interested. There need be no anxiety about this since the inspectors will be in regular touch with all those whose work will require them to refer to the guidance and the codes of practice.
I turn now to the proposed new subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) is of course linked to subsection (7). Taken on its own, it says only that failing to comply with a code of practice is not in itself an offence. That of course is already quite self-evident in the Bill and it is not necessary to spell it out. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said precisely that. Subsection (7) deals with the admissibility of codes of practice as evidence in criminal proceedings. Your Lordships have already given this question some attention in Committee, when we discussed the similar amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The Government said then that we would give some thought to the implications of making such a change. I have to tell your Lordships that after very careful consideration we remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to include a provision of this kind in the Bill.
The position in relation to codes of practice under this Bill is rather different from that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, or indeed under the Food and Environment Protection Act. Codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are directly relevant to the conduct of the police in circumstances described in the main provisions of the Act. Likewise, codes under the Agriculture Act 1968 are linked to the general offence created by Section 1 of that Act. The Food and Environment Protection Act provides for codes of practice which will amplify the requirements imposed by the Act and by regulations made under it.
The codes of practice which we shall issue or approve under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill do not have such a direct link with the Bill's penalty provisions. It is not necessary, since under the Bill

1259
there are other means of dealing with failure to care for animals properly. Revocation of a licence or certificate can mean loss of livelihood. Those sanctions are not available in dealing with (to take an example) a farmer who keeps his animals in substandard accommodation. In that case the codes are the cutting edge of the offence provision in the relevant legislation.
In this Bill, codes of practice have a quite different status. They are in the spirit of the Bill, but they complement rather than amplify its other provisions. The codes are most unlikely to be relevant, and therefore admissible in evidence, in relation to any offence created by the Bill itself, although they might be relevant in proceedings for an offence under the Protection of Animals Acts.
Those are the legal arguments, but I should add—because I believe it is reassuring—that the absence of the provision suggested in this amendment would not in any way preclude the admission of codes of practice as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and if they are relevant to an issue arising during proceedings they could be taken in evidence. The new subsection is therefore unnecessary as well as being inappropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, drew attention to yesterday's debate, which of course is relevant to the discussion that we are now having. May I reassure him that we shall consider this matter further in the light of yesterday's debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell. We shall look particularly, with all those appropriate advisers, at the valid point of general principle which he has raised. But I am afraid that I cannot comment further on this tonight.
I shall carefully consider the points which have been raised by all those who have spoken in this debate. But I hope that the explanation I have given, and what has been said about the preceding subsections proposed by this amendment, will persuade the noble Lord who proposed this amendment that it will not be necessary to press it further tonight.
Lord Melchett: No, my Lords, I shall not. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking up this suggestion, which I believe was originally made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, that in the light of yesterday's debate it would be desirable to consider this question again. I take the Minister's point about the first of the three subsections, but I totally disagree with him about the need for subsection (7). Frankly, it may be self-evident to a lawyer, as those who advise the noble Lord the Minister and my noble friend might be, but I do not think it is self-evident to most people. Most of the people implementing this Bill will be working in laboratories and not in the courts of law. It does not seem to me to be self-evident that a failure to follow guidance contained in a code does not give rise to any offence. It would be desirable for that to be made clear in the Bill for the sake of those who will be operating it.
Even more strongly may I say that, if it is the fact that a code could be used in evidence, then the people who operate under the codes ought to be told that. The noble Lord is not saying that that is self-evident from the Bill because I do not think anyone would advance
1260
that argument; it is not. It is only, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, when one gets some considerable way into a lengthy letter that this gem emerges, that nothing in the Bill precludes the codes from being used as evidence in a court of law were they to be relevant. But once again it is important that people operating under these codes should be told that. It seems to me that the place where they should be told is on the face of the Bill. I personally think that it is extremely important that the last two subsections of the amendment should be included.
Although the analogy with the farm animals may not be precise, I think that the analogy with the Food and Environment Protection Act is rather better, because a number of sanctions are available to the Minister of Agriculture short of prosecution under that Act, as there are, as the noble Lord said, to the Home Office under this Bill. Nevertheless, the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen working on that Act thought it was necessary just a few months ago for these provisions to be included, and I suspect, in the light of yesterday's debate, that that is the way we are likely to go in future Acts of Parliament. I hope we shall do so in this one, when the noble Lord has had a chance to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Protection of confidential information]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 17, after ("he") insert ("recklessly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this very shortly. Noble Lords will remember that we had a considerable debate and there was considerable anxiety about the provisions in Clause 24(1) regarding the protection of confidential information. Some assurances were given at Committee stage which to me seem to go beyond the wording of the Bill. It was suggested, I think from memory by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, although I do not have Hansard in front of me, that if somebody simply asked for information he would not be guilty of an offence. That did not seem to me, or to some of those who would be affected by this provision, to be all that clear.
I hoped it would be possible to find a word and I took a limited amount of legal advice—I am sure not enough—to see whether it would not be possible to qualify this offence so that it was a case of somebody quite deliberately doing something that he knew he should not and that he knew would damage the person from whom information was received. That is my intention. I hope I have satisfied the draftsmen—I rather doubt it. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I agree with the principle of the amendment, but I am not so sure about the form of words. Clause 24 is very widely drawn and it appears to me that it ought to be qualified. Clause 24 creates a criminal offence. Lord Melchett suggests that recklessness be an element in that offence, but I am not sure what is the meaning of recklessness, certainly in the context of this clause. The word can have more than one meaning. It can mean irresponsibility, but it has other meanings. It can be

1261
defined to mean a statement made without consideration to all the relevant interests.
It seems to me that unless the amendment defines the meaning to be given to the word "reckless" we may be introducing confusion or uncertainty into the clause, which, after all, creates a criminal offence. I am sure that there should be no room for uncertainty in the criminal law; so I go along with the principle expressed by my noble friend that this clause ought to be qualified but I am not happy about the word "reckless"
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I must declare an interest, albeit a very small one, in that I am a member of the Council of the Chemical Industries' Association. I should like to comment on this amendment, with your Lordships' agreement. It is a matter of considerable importance to the industry. I believe that the introduction of the word "reckless" would be wholly counter-productive. From the industry's point of view, when trade secrets are often of significant importance, any amendment giving the impression to industry that information provided by it in confidence might not be kept confidential would be a very regrettable step. It would inevitably tend to inhibit openness of discussion with relevant authorities, and that would be a most retrograde situation.
I am not suggesting that there should be any greater secrecy in industry than there is now. Indeed, I believe that substantial efforts should be make to reduce the amount of secrecy within industry. It is very important that the public have as wide a knowledge of what happens within industry as possible. But the greatest understanding by the public is not necessarily afforded by this kind of amendment. Anyway, that is another issue.
The serious point remains that industry has to try to ensure that its commercial interests are not hurt by its competitors and that it can rely upon a clearly understandable legal framework. I think that perhaps I am touching on the other side of the same point as that which the noble Lord opposite has just touched upon. This amendment does not offer any assurance to industry that the position would be a stable legal framework.
Listening to your Lordships, I thought of an even broader issue than the chemical industries issue. There has been considerable reference this evening to the question of codes of practice. There was a very interesting debate that I listened to yesterday, a short debate on the subject of codes of practice. I reflected on that, and it drew my thoughts to the problems of codes of practice in a more general sense. It seems, with respect, that there are certain codes that we should all attempt to practise. One of these is that of treating confidential information with confidence. Any variation from this seems to me to be intrinsically dishonourable, and with that in mind I would be bound to take exception to this amendment in any Bill which would qualify and make ambiguous the meaning of the word "confidential".
I believe that the interpolation of the word "reckless" into this clause is such a qualification. It would not be appropriate for me to argue about semantics and what the word "reckless" means in this
1262
context, but it certainly is open to wide interpretation and certainly seems to me to wreck any clear construction of the meaning of this clause of the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, for his contribution to this debate. I must say that when I first saw this amendment I was not sure whether it was reckless or wrecking; but I am afraid I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that this is not an amendment which the Government can receive with any enthusiasm at all.
The amendment would alter the terms of the offence created under Clause 24(1), so as to make only the reckless disclosure of confidential information unlawful under this Bill. As I explained to your Lordships in Committee, the effect of Clause 24(1) is not oppressive. Its chief purpose is to protect commercially sensitive information, personal details and other sensitive information from wilful abuse. Of course none of the people it applies to, such as the Secretary of State, his inspectors and other officials, assessors, and members of the Animal Procedures Committee, is at all likely to commit the offence. The clause is a safeguard, a longstop. It is not a provision we expect will need to be applied. The clause makes plain that the offence does not relate to information which is disclosed by someone in the course of discharging their functions under the Act. The offence is aimed at the person who discloses information in a damaging way, knowing quite well that it was given on a specific in-confidence basis.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary, it would certainly exclude the inadvertent disclosure of information, but, provided due discretion had been observed, would not conceivably be the subject of prosecution in any case. What the amendment does succeed in doing—although I am sure it is not intended to—is to remove from Clause 24(1) the central target of the offence. By confining the offence to reckless disclosure, it means that confidential information would no longer be protected from deliberate, calculated abuse: passing on one firm's research plans to another, for example. The whole purpose of the provision is thereby destroyed.
The offence as it stands needs no further qualification, it catches deliberate abuse, or indeed reckless disclosure, without in any way preventing members of the Animal Procedures Committee or others with responsibilities under the legislation from discussing information to the extent that their duties require it. The present balance in Clause 24 is in our view right, and I must urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say I had not realised that this applied to the Secretary of State. In the light of recent events, I can see why the Chemical Industries Association and others are so anxious that a Secretary of State disclosing confidential—private and confidential, is it?—letters should be immediately locked up. I now see why the clause is worded so strongly. More seriously, as my noble friend has said

1263
and as the noble Viscount has said, I accept that "recklessly" is not the right word. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, that there is really great concern about the wording of this part of Clause 24, and I know that some of those who may be in the position of serving on the Animal Procedures Committee are worried that they may be placing themselves in a position where they may well find themselves committing a criminal offence quite inadvertently.
The noble Viscount has twice tried to reassure us on this point. I do not think he has entirely succeeded, and I hope it may be possible, before the Bill becomes an Act, for all those involved to see whether there is not some way of protecting the legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality which, helicopters aside, I think is generally accepted to be worth safeguarding; and, on the other hand, ensuring that people who are serving on the committee do not feel they are going to be so inhibited as to place them in a quite impossible position. I am not entirely convinced that the balance is quite right. I hope it is something which the Government and others involved, particularly the commercial sector, will approach with that in mind. However it is clear that "recklessly" is not going to do, though it might well apply to some of the Secretaries of State whom this clause will affect in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Persons entering a place which has been designated as a scientific procedure or breeding and supply establishment in pursuance of a warrant issued under subsection (1) above shall comply with such precautions as may be specified by the person in charge of the establishment to prevent the spread of infections or contagious disease within or outside the establishment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. In Committee, I drew attention to the potentially grave hazard a policeman might face if he forcefully entered registered premises on his own. I also indicated that he might release from containment facilities pathogens and especially viruses which are highly infectious both to man and to animals. May I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who supported me from all sides on that occasion in Committee.
I accept the requirement of the noble Lord the Minister of State that the right of unaccompanied entry is a necessary reserve power, and in the amendment I have proposed it is not in question. The noble Lord reassured me in Committee that all can be left to the good sense of local magistrates and the police, and that the Home Office will issue guidance to the police in particular cases. The purpose of my amendment is to reinforce that guidance with an obligation on the part of the police to heed any special precautions in force at a particular registered establishment, and to give strength to the arm of anyone at that establishment who may have a responsibility for disease security there. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I remember thinking at Committee stage that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, seemed to have a great deal to be said for it. I remember also that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who has now gone, supported it as a way of safeguarding what was going on inside a laboratory and trying to prevent any untoward accident happening through somebody, who was ignorant of the procedures going on inside, entering it. I should have thought this was a very good compromise amendment and that it could have the support of the Minister, who I hope will look at it favourably.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I agree about this amendment. Surely a police constable finding himself in an animal laboratory is as much out of his depth, if that is the right epithet, as a bull in a china shop.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has raised again the important point concerning the possible spread of infection as a result of the entry of a constable following the issue of a search warrant. When he raised this at Committee stage, the noble Lord suggested that Clause 25 of the Bill should require that where a constable enters premises using the power of a search warrant issued under that clause he should be accompanied by a member of the Cruelty to Animals Inspectorate. At that time it was our view that the need to ensure access urgently in a situation where an inspector may not be quickly available was too important to warrant a change to the Bill of the sort proposed.
I have been thinking about all this further since we last debated the matter. The 1876 Act provides a power of entry under warrant, but only into premises not registered under that Act. This Bill does not make that distinction. In practice, if a power of entry is needed at all, it is much more likely to be needed to give access to places which are not designated establishments under the Bill. If we can reintroduce that distinction, I do not think there should be a problem in finding an inspector to take part in entering the premises. The noble Lord has given us further arguments for the objections to entry by a non-expert on his own into some scientific establishments.
In view of this, we propose to bring forward an amendment at the Third Reading of the Bill in this House to alter Clause 25 of the Bill so as to require a constable who exercises a search warrant issued under that clause, if he is entering a designated establishment, to be accompanied by an inspector, but not if he is entering a location which is not designated. Such a change will be of benefit not only in the prevention of the spread of infection but also in removing any other difficulties which might arise because of a constable's lack of knowledge of scientific matters or of the work of the establishment in question. In all the circumstances, I feel that this is a preferable course to the amendment which is proposed tonight.
In practice, the need for warrants for entry to designated establishments, if it arises at all, is likely to be very rare, because the inspector will be able to go freely into the establishment at any time. As noble Lords will appreciate, we would find some difficulty in accepting the noble Lord's present amendment, since

1265
it gives a person other than the constable some statutory control over the circumstances in which a warrant may be executed. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment, and feel that my reply today is more helpful than the one I gave him on the last occasion.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. I am entirely happy with it, and gladly beg leave to withdraw the present amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Standard methods of humane killing]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 19, line 27, after ("fishes") insert ("and by the immediate exsanguination or immediate destruction of the brain in rodents and birds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe an apology to your Lordships' House for introducing this amendment at Report stage. As your Lordships know, it was down for Committee stage, but, faced with the choice of moving the amendment or catching my last train home, I am afraid that I chose to catch the last train home.
The reason for this amendment is that I am advised that breaking an animal's neck or striking it on the head, particularly in the case of rodents and birds, may not be sufficient to produce long-lasting unconsciousness or certain death in every case, and to ensure that further drastic action is not required while the animal is unconscious. I am therefore putting this amendment forward as a probing amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this is the first time that we have discussed anything to do with Schedule 1 to the Bill. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall resist the temptation to go into a further description about other parts of the schedule that have not been raised. I will simply say to the noble Lord that our advice is that the suggested additional safeguard that he proposes is not necessary.
We have consulted the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare specifically on this question, and they agree with our view. Destruction of the brain is a necessary safeguard in the case of fishes, because they
1266
are cold-blooded vertebrates whose dislocated head may continue to experience sensation for some time after severance. That is not the case with rodents, lagomorphs—that is, hares or rabbits—or birds, which are all warm-blooded vertebrates. Ex-sanguination or destruction of the brain is specified for warm-blooded vertebrates in respect of four other methods of killing permitted under the schedule—those in paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 7. That, however, is for the quite separate reason that each of those four methods carries a risk of incomplete effectiveness.
Had we proposed to allow dislocation of the neck in the case of larger animals, the noble Lord would undoubtedly have been right to raise this question, since it is possible that in the case of, say, a large rabbit the method might not be immediately and completely effective. However, we have intentionally restricted the use of this method to animals of a certain body weight—1 kg in the case of rodents and lagomorphs, 5 kg for birds, and 250 grammes for fishes. That, in our view, will ensure that the method is used only where its effectiveness can be guaranteed. For larger weights the method would only be allowed if we agreed to license it, for which we should need to be fully satisfied of the operator's competence. By imposing those restrictions on body weight we have gone further than the authoritative textbooks, which, incidentally, do not suggest the safeguard of ex-sanguination or destruction of the brain where dislocation is used, except for fishes.
I hope, that what I have said has helped to clarify the reasoning behind the specific instance that concerns the noble Lord. In general, our safeguards go slightly further even than those proposed in the authoritative practice guides; and, as I have said, our scheme has the general approval of the expert bodies in this field. Having considered the noble Lord's amendment very carefully we are satisfied that it is not a necessary addition. I hope that he will feel reassured.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister sounds thoroughly convincing. I shall report what he said to my advisers in order to see what they say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.