HC Deb 22 July 1898 vol 62 cc835-6
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the greater frequency of the admitted breaches of the law by vivisectors; whether any prosecutions have been instituted under the provisions of the Act of 1876; and, if so. how many; whether any convictions, and, if so, how many, have been obtained; whether his attention has been directed to the circumstance that in the Return of experiments performed on living animals during the year 1897 Dr. Poore, the inspector, states, on page 5, that illegal experiments, performed admittedly by persons without the necessary licences and certificates, have been recorded as performed by persons holding those licences and certificates; whether Dr. Poore has been asked to give any explanation of this inclusion of illegal experiments in the catalogue of legal experiments; how many inspections of places licensed for the practice of vivisection have been, during the year 1897, severally reported to the Home Secretary by Dr. Poore and Sir James Russell; were these inspections carried on during the performance of experiments, or were the bodies of the vivisected animals subsequently inspected; are there any inspections of experiments by operators with certificates enabling them to vivisect in unregistered places; and how are such inspections, if any, carried out; and whether he will publish the names of the persons who, on the admission of the Report, have performed with impunity illegal experiments on the bodies of living animals?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

There were two such cases in each of the years 1894–96, and seven in 1897, but all arose from inadvertence, and were not in my opinion of a serious character, and certainly were not fitting cases for prosecution. There has been only one prosecution under the Act, and in that case the proceedings were dismissed. It is the case that two of the licensees (by what I am satisfied was mere inadvertence) omitted to apply for renewal of their licences. This is stated on page 5 of the Report. It is also stated on page 7 that the list of licensees contains the names of these two gentlemen. The licences would certainly have been renewed if the ordinary application had been made. I see no objection to this course having been adopted. Dr. Poore paid 61 visits of inspection to licensed places in 1897, and Sir James Russell 68. Some of these visits took place during the performance of experiments, and many animals that had been experimented upon were seen by the inspector. The only experiments performed elsewhere than at registered, places are inoculation operations in connection with the diseases of cattle, and inspection in such cases is deemed unnecessary and does not take place. With regard to the publication of the names of persons who have performed illegal experiments, I do not think it necessary or right that such publication should take place where the illegality has not been of so serious a nature as to call for the institution of legal proceedings.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Will the right honourable Gentleman take care to give public notice that the Vivisection. Act of 1876 is a dead letter?

[No Reply.]