§ 17 Clause 21, page 14, line 5, at end insert—
§ ("(2A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Animal Procedures Committee before publishing or altering any information under subsection (1) above or issuing, approving, altering or approving any alteration in any code issued or approved under subsection (2) above.
§ (2B) A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of a code issued or approved under subsection (2) above shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal or civil proceedings but—
- (a) any such code shall be admissible in evidence in any such proceedings; and
- (b) if any of its provisions 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.
§ (2C) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament—
- (a) copies of any information published or code issued by him under subsection (1) or (2) above and of any alteration made by him in any such information or code; and
- (b) copies of any code approved by him under subsection (2) above and of any alteration approved by him in any such code;
§ (2D) No resolution shall be passed by either House under subsection (2C) above in respect of any information, code or alteration alter the end of the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy of the information, code or alteration was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.")
§ 18 line 6, after ("publish") insert ("and lay before Parliament")
§ 19 line 10, leave out subsection (4).
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 en bloc.
§ These three amendments are linked. Together they make much more detailed provision for the procedures governing the production and publication of the guidance and codes of practice provided for in Clause 21(1) and 21(2), as well as clarifying the status of the codes of practice in legal proceedings.
§ Amendment No. 17 is the substantive amendment, and it inserts four new subsections into Clause 21. Subsection (2A) requires the Animal Procedures Committee to be consulted before guidance or codes of practice are issued or altered under Clause 21. It was suggested to us that there would be value in placing this obligation on the Secretary of State. It ensures that the Animal Procedures Committee is fully involved in scrutinising the guidance and codes of practice which underpin the new controls in the Bill and in monitoring any proposed changes to them.
§ Subsection (2B) fulfils an undertaking that I gave on behalf of the Government at Third Reading in your Lordships' House to clarify on the face of the Bill the status of the codes of practice in relation to legal proceedings. The new subsection provides that failure to comply with a provision of the codes is not of itself a basis for criminal or civil proceedings. However, the codes are to be admissible in evidence in proceedings, and any provision in them which appears relevant to the court shall be taken into account. This is a helpful clarification, and much of the credit for bringing it about must go to various noble Lords, perhaps notably the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who argued for it tenaciously and skilfully at an earlier stage.
§ The purpose of the subsections (2C) and (2D) is to provide an opportunity for closer scrutiny by Parliament of the guidance on the operation of the Act and the codes of practice, to which I have already referred. The amendment provides for the note of guidance and also codes of practice which may be issued or approved to be laid before Parliament and to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The same procedures are also to apply whenever the guidance is altered or any alteration is made or approved in a code of practice. If one of these documents is required to be withdrawn by a resolution of either House, my right honourable friend is obliged to withdraw it and to lay a new document in its place.
§ Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are consequential on the insertion of new subsections (2B), (2C) and (2D) in 610 Clause 21. Amendment No. 18 provides for the statistical information which is required to be published under subsection (3) to be laid before Parliament, but in this instance no special procedure for scrutiny is required since the statistics are in the nature of a record. Amendment No. 19 deletes subsection (4) of Clause 21 which is made redundant by the reorganisation of the other provisions in the clause.
§ These are substantial amendments whose effect is to enable Parliament to exercise a close and continuing watch over the operation of the legislation in the years ahead. The guidance and codes of practice, whose important role has often been alluded to in our debates, may not be published or altered without the opportunity for Parliament to study and, if necessary, debate what is proposed. Together with the new requirement to consult the Animal Procedures Committee and the clarification of the status of codes of practice in legal proceedings, these changes add up to a worthwhile series of amendments and I commend them to your Lordships.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, noble Lords may well wish to take note that this set of Commons amendments, Nos. 17 to 19, directly reflects the influence of the revisory role of your Lordships' House; this as exercised in the course of debate on amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Airedale, but on which there was no Division. It is a matter on which those noble Lords in particular, my noble friend the Minister and indeed the Government are much to be congratulated.
This set of amendments affords essential clarification of the status of codes of practice concerned with the care of protected animals and their use for regulated procedures. It is a code which when the Bill left your Lordships' House was a code of mere guidance, without legal effect, as the marginal gloss to Clause 21 still, in error, indicates. As I understand subsection (2B) in Amendment No. 17, it returns to your Lordships' House for approval, but as a code which if relevant has to be taken into account in all courts of first instance and on appeal in all revisory courts; and the internal nexus with contraventions of the Bill is also established.
The code now serves as an aid to primary legislation and as such is a type of subordinate legislation. Hence the inclusion of subsections (2C) and (2D) to protect and preserve the legislative role of Parliament as it affects subordinate legislation within the established constitutional framework. There is mandatory consultation under subsection (2A) and that can be enforced by judicial review.
Although it would not be customary to resolve for withdrawal, and although amendments cannot be made, the sanction of a resolution for withdrawal remains effective by resort to the usual channels. Your Lordships may well consider that the swift action of the Government—the revision of the status of this code—is not only commendable but merits a measure of enthusiastic acclaim.
§ 4.15 p.m.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, it is not my intention to initiate a process of ping-pong by dividing the House against Amendment No. 17. I nevertheless deplore it. The Act as it was represented an agreement between two groups of people, both of them reasonable. The genuine animal lovers—whose leader in your Lordships' House has always been acknowledged to be my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I, for many years representing the reasonably-minded animal experimenters in laboratories who are by no means indifferent to animal welfare—came together on the basis of trusting one another and getting our close colleagues to meet to work out a scheme to recommend to the Government how such things should best be managed.
But there is a third group of people involved—the militants, who are a mixed bag. They consist of those who are so obsessed with the suffering of animals in laboratories that they are unmindful of the suffering of animals elsewhere or the suffering of human beings under all circumstances; those who are professional protesters and who will protest against anything without the slightest interest in what it is they are protesting against; and lastly those representing an infiltration by the "nasty brigade" who move them in the direction of violence—the militants.
Amendment No. 17 gives a permanent parliamentary footing for that militant tendency. I do not of course mean Militant Tendency in the political and trade union sense. Your Lordships and the other place will be permanently troubled by interventions to modify the law. It will not be treated as res judicata—a pronouncement by Parliament that will in the normal course of events perhaps be taken under review, and it may be in 20 or 30 years' time, with discretion to the Minister to exercise a certain pliability over what he will allow. It will be the subject of permanent pressure for your Lordships' House and for the other place, and neither House will manage it well because they will not be sufficiently well informed on the detail to be able to intervene in the decision effectively.
The question of whether codes of guidance should be issued by a Minister or written into a Bill has been the subject of innumerable debates in your Lordships' House in one context after another. The case can be put simply. If one wants a code of guidance it should be drafted by a Minister with power to vary it. If one builds it into the Bill we have something that cannot be varied and there would have to be another Bill which must await parliamentary time to come before the legislature.
I do not believe that the amendment represents a reasonable alternative to either of those. I think that it will entail continuous intermeddling by pressure groups with detailed issues which Parliament is not well qualified to decide and to which it does not have the time to give attention.
§ Lord Henderson of BromptonMy Lords, I should like to enter a note of disssent to what was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I hope that things will not work out as he suggests. I have nothing but praise for the amendments, and I congratulate the Government on introducing them in the House of Commons. As 612 stated in another place, the question of the proper legal status of statutory codes of conduct has exercised this House for a great many months. Here, we find that the Government have responded in full measure to the persistent efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others to try to get this matter right not merely in the Bill we are discussing but also in other measures that come before us. If the Government intend to pursue this line, as I hope they will, in other Bills, there will be no need for codes of practice to be scrutinised so rigorously as now happens in your Lordships' House.
It is important that codes of practice should be clarified in relation to legal proceedings, for legal proceedings are bound to take place. It is of the utmost importance that the courts and all those involved should know exactly what is the intention of the Act. That is why I welcome so much these amendments and also the previous amendment, Amendment No. 16, moved to this clause.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. I apologise for the fact that I have not given him notice of them. I am particularly concerned about subsection (2C). I welcome the fact that the subsection provides for either House of Parliament to resolve that any information, code or alteration published and laid before Parliament by the Minister shall be withdrawn, and that the Secretary of State, in that event, shall withdraw it accordingly. This is, to my mind, a great improvement in our statutory procedures for subordinate legislation. I do not recall any previous piece of legislation in which this precise formula has been used. Until now when there has been subordinate legislation subject to the negative procedure it has been necessary for anyone who wished to question it to pray against it—to pray that it be annulled or that it be not made in the form in which it had been laid.
Here, it seems to me, we have a great improvement. There is not the confrontation of the annulment procedure. Instead, there is a requirement for withdrawal, clearly, so that the Minister can take into account what either House has said, without the element of confrontation implicit in the annulment procedure. I welcome very much this procedural innovation which is of considerable importance. I should like to know whether this is the first occasion on which it is to be used. If so, I would wish to congratulate the Minister on it.
Secondly, it is not clear to me, although the amendments themselves may be clear, whether if the Minister withdraws, in accordance with a resolution of either House, and then re-lays, the instrument that he lays a second time is also subject to the possibility of a resolution to withdraw by either House of Parliament. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord could answer those two questions.
I believe, however, that the proposals we are discussing today are a substantial improvement and a response, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, to persistent questioning in this House. I hope very much that this will have a pervasive influence on future statutes containing subordinate legislation on codes of practice.
§ Lord Houghton of SowerbyMy Lords, I should like, first, to welcome the comments of the noble Lord, 613 Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has taken a special interest in the status of codes of practice which are being increasingly used as part of the machinery of the law and of government. One day, no doubt, we shall have some more formal way of defining what shall happen to codes of conduct and codes of practice and how they may be dealt with. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, sounded a note to which I do not object. The noble Earl came very close to proving that politics is the art of the possible. His remarks suggested that we were probably coming very close indeed to some of the sensitive nerves of parts of the scientific world. Nevertheless, the Minister needed no real persuading, if I may say so, about what is proposed. It was welcomed by the tripartite group of advisers who have been called into consultation by the Minister from time to time.
Within this field of action and administration much is bound to be hidden from the public. The public have a great concern about what goes on in the laboratories. But for all sorts of reasons, most of them good, one cannot admit the public to witness what goes on in the laboratories in the same way that many people may witness what goes on in hospitals. So the public concern, now written into the Bill, has to be entrusted to someone who will see that it is properly implemented and suitably administered. Who will do that? I have been keen about transferring accountability as well as responsibility to the Secretary of State. I have also been keen to establish the responsibility of Parliament in this matter. The public concern is perhaps more fully entrusted, to their satisfaction, to Parliament than to the authority given to a Minister. This enables Parliament in both Houses to scrutinise and to raise questions upon any proposals or changes that the Secretary of State wishes to make in the code of conduct that he lays before Parliament for attention. That is important.
I have said to people who criticise the Bill—there has been plenty of criticism—that, first, we had to get animals into politics in order to achieve anything at all but that, secondly, we want to get animals into parliamentary democracy, with some responsibility fixed upon Parliament. Here it is, not only in the present connection but in any debate that Parliament may have from time to time on reports of the Secretary of State on the discharge of his responsibilities. I hope that this responsibility will not be abused either in another place or here. I trust that matters raised will be those of genuine concern and that the approach to them will be constructive and understanding. I believe that I saw the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, shaking his head for a moment. Both of us know what strong, emotional and militant forces lie in the background to this problem; we know that. From time to time the newspapers are not lacking in presenting the potentialities for militant action, or indeed in giving publicity to those that actually take place. It is a very dangerous and emotive area of public concern, and we have to be careful how it is handled.
Nevertheless, that is no reason for not putting the matter firmly in the hands of Parliament. It is Parliament's responsibility. I hope that Parliament will not regard it as just another reserve power which they do not trouble to use, that everything goes by on 614 the nod, and that sort of thing. Here is the opportunity for matters to be raised under the negative procedure. It does not require the Government to come to both Houses for a positive approval of what they do. Very often that is unnecessarily provocative of debate and criticism. The negative procedure leaves it to those who have concern in either House to raise the matter in accordance with the procedures laid down.
I cannot comment on some of the procedural matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose experience and knowledge in this field is unparalleled. However, from my own experience, I think that this is a very good provision in the Bill. It was inserted in the Bill by general agreement, and those people believed, as I do, that it strengthened the position of Parliament in relation to the use of animals in laboratories. That is something which was undertaken on behalf of the public, which the public should appreciate and they should be content for this supervision to be exercised by their representatives in Parliament.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Lord MelchettMy Lords, as I was one of those who moved amendments to this effect when we debated the Bill initially, I very warmly welcome the changes which the Government made in another place, and, not for the first time, I very strongly disagree with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, had to say.
The noble Earl mentioned three groups with an interest in this legislation. He omitted a fourth— the general public. There are people outside Parliament and the particular interest groups that he mentioned who have followed this legislation with great interest. I believe that there is clear evidence that increasing numbers of people find all experiments on animals morally repugnant, which is a view I myself share.
This legislation does not yet reflect what I believe to be the general public's view of experiments on animals, but it moves some way towards recognising it. These amendments are a significant step in that direction and are very welcome because they will allow continuing oversight of what is done under this legislation. If this legislation is to work, and to be seen to work successfully by those outside Parliament and the outside interest groups, in my view it must lead to a continuing relentless decline in the number of experiments on animals, in the degree of suffering inflicted on animals, and, in view of the "re-use" clause which has now been inserted in the Bill, it must particularly lead to a decrease in the number of animals involved in experimentation.
I believe that these amendments would help in that. There is a tremendous job to be done, not just by the scientists involved—and many of them will play their part—the animal welfare organisations and the Home Office, but by the general public taking an interest in what is done under this legislation to ensure that it works to achieve those objectives, as I hope it will.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, my intervention will be brief, but it follows that the, as one would expect, interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in asking the question whether, if information, a code or anything else under 615 subsection (2A) is withdrawn, the new code, information, or whatever it be, issued is subject to the same procedure. I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister will say that it is, and one would imagine that it comes within the definition.
My question is in furtherance of that. I was considering very carefully whether or not I ought to put down an amendment for clarification, and I decided that, very likely, it would be contrary to the wishes of the House because no one wants this Bill to be held up. However, the following is the point that occurred to me.
When we deal with statutory orders and instruments we are in the habit of a procedure where we either affirm or negative but we do not amend—we are not allowed to. Unless there are reasoned resolutions for withdrawal placed before either House of Parliament, one is likely to run into the following difficulty. One Member of your Lordships' House may say that he objects to line 1 or paragraph (a) of the code. Another Member may say that he does not object at all to line 1 or paragraph (a) of the code, but that he objects to section 3 or line 4 of the code. If we do not have a reasoned resolution a vote will be taken for the withdrawal of the code, information or whatever it may be.
It seems to me that the Minister is then left in the impossible position of not knowing whether the House has called for the withdrawal because of the objection of Member A or the objection of Member B, or because other Members of the House who did not speak at all do not like the whole code. Therefore, I merely ask whether a procedure can be laid down without our amending this Bill—which I do not want to do; I do not want to suggest an amendment to the Commons amendment—whereby a reasoned resolution for withdrawal will have to be given before the House and voted on, so that the poor Secretary of State knows why the code, information or whatever it may be, has been withdrawn by the wish of the House.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his welcome to this addition to the Bill. I am grateful for the comments which he let me have about it in writing beforehand. I am glad that it finds favour both with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
My noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned the question of the note in the margin; I believe he referred to it as the "marginal gloss". My noble friend has raised an interesting point. We looked at what I believe is called the shoulder note when preparing the amendments to Clause 21. We considered that the words in the note were still apt to describe in general terms the contents of the clause as amended. The note itself is not part of the clause. It is intended to give the reader only an indication—my noble friend may call it a flavour—of the contents of the clause without describing it in detail. A more detailed shoulder note would tend to repeat the contents of the clause, and to some extent that would defeat its purpose.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he answered some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, about 616 the peculiar sensitivities of this particular Bill. I know that the noble Earl, with his vast experience of similar legislation, will realise just how important it is to get this absolutely right. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he said that it was important—and he referred to the consultation that has been going on—that every possible step should be taken in order to try to get this Bill onto the statute book.
I believe that the noble Earl's fears, that it would lead either to a permanent pressurisation for change in the way that he imagined or that it would result in a permanent parliamentary footing for those who sought, by some rather extreme methods to try to achieve change, are groundless. I do not believe that that will be the case. This new clause goes a long way towards satisfying not just parliamentary but also public approval for the changes that the Bill proposes to make.
In answer to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I am advised that subsection (2C) is paralleled in the Mental Health Act 1983. Precisely which part of the Mental Health Act 1983 I cannot tell him, but in that Act he will find something similar. As regards the second version also being subject to the procedure, I can assure both the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, yes, that is the case.
The amendment does not itself allow either House to amend the proposed code. It must either reject it or not, as the case may be, which I believe is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made. If the code is rejected, the Secretary of State will of course note what has been said. Whether a reasoned amendment is possible is a procedural matter, I am advised, for either House to decide.
We are getting into the realm of procedural matters in a way that I am quite unqualified to answer; but I understand that it would be possible to do it in the way that I have just described. If I can help the noble Lord further after reading carefully the point he has just made by writing to him about it, and of course copying that information to others concerned about it, I hope that that will meet his concern.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. It was a little unfair of me, because I should have given him notice of this question and I was not able to do so. I shall be delighted if he takes up the matter and writes to me, and either says that my fears in regard to the Secretary of State not knowing why the thing had been withdrawn, if there is a diversity of view in the House, are groundless, or if not whether some procedure will be hit upon. We do not want to take up any more time on the point now.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am grateful. I shall certainly do what the noble Lord suggests. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and others for commenting. I believe that this is a worthwhile change, and I beg to move.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, with the leave of the House, and before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say on a procedural point that I took the same point unofficially as the noble Lord, 617 Lord Mishcon, has taken. I have been advised that it is the sanction of withdrawal that can operate, according to the customs of the House through the usual channels, so that the resolution is not pressed to a withdrawal resolution, and the Minister then has an opportunity of studying what was said in debate. That apparently, so I am advised, works.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, the mysteries of the procedure of your Lordships' House know no end.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.