HC Deb 18 February 1966 vol 724 cc1792-800

4.1 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

We have been correctly described as a nation of animal lovers and this House must justly be proud of the part it has played in helping to create that reputation. We have a history, particularly in recent years, of passing legislation expressive of the proper concern of our people with the welfare of animals. The point has just been made that a nation can be judged, in terms of its greatness, by how it treats those in need.

This can be equally validly applied to the way in which we treat animals. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity of drawing the Houses's attention to what I consider to be a loophole in the provisions which we make to safeguard the welfare of animals. I refer, in particular, to the growing concern of animal welfare societies and animal lovers about the increasing number of losses of pets, particularly dogs and cats. In my constituency of Doncaster in the two months immediately before Christmas, almost 30 cats and several dogs were reported missing to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is reasonable to assume, because of the all too frequent reports of such losses, that, for every animal reported lost, several others go unreported.

My attention has also been drawn to frequent consignments of cats and dogs from railway stations, including that in my constituency, to medical research institutions, university physiology departments and laboratories of drug manufacturers. These organisations are prepared, because they need these animals to carry out their research experiments, to pay what appear to be substantial sums, though these represent a saving when compared with the cost of breeding those animals.

The Littlewood Committee's Report, published recently, points out that these organisations are prepared to pay £3 and £5 respectively for cats and dogs, and in the light of the fact that, certainly in my constituency and surrounding areas no one is licensed or known to breed either cats or dogs for this purpose, it is not unreasonable to suspect that some of the animals being dispatched have been picked up from the streets.

I suspect that they have been picked up by people looking for easy money who find a rapid and easy source of income by catching poor, harmless and defenceless animals under cover of darkness, smothering them and ultimately dispatching them and receiving their mercenary reward. Recently in my constituency, because the animal welfare society had been alerted to this traffic and had mounted a vigil on the railway station, the driver of a van reported as conveying animals to the station was warned that the station was under surveillance. He turned away from the station on one occasion and, hurriedly discharging his cargo of animals in a back street, fled with his vehicle. All this heightens the legitimate suspicion that there are people carrying out this nefarious traffic for pecuniary gain.

This is an emotional subject, but one which we should not treat in a too emotional or sentimental fashion. Nevertheless, I think that the House will recognise that these domestic animals are a source of joy and affection to children. They stimulate in children those virtues and characteristics which we want to develop, and to old people they are often the only solace in their all too frequent loneliness.

I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to concentrate on one or two points which I put to him in the hope that if we cannot stamp out we can at least curb this traffic and remove the misery and anguish that old people, children and animal lovers generally suffer. I ask for the early implementation of at least that part of the Littlewood Report which deals with the supply of animals for experimental purposes. The Committee dealt with this matter at considerable length and gave useful statistics on this point.

I hope that my hon. Friend will persuade his right hon. Friend to give early implementation to these proposals, and in particular to the recommendation that universities and their physiological and biological departments, the teaching hospitals and the laboratories of the drug manufacturers should use for the purposes of their experiments and research only animals specifically bred for the purpose and that they should not purchase from dealers and other sources animals which are part of the link in the relationship between human beings and animal pets.

I ask my hon. Friend to consider prohibiting the purchase of animals by dealers from children. Many children are unaware of the ultimate fate of the animal. They may unwittingly sell an animal on the not unreasonable assumption that it will be subsequently sold by the dealer to someone who will lavish the same affection on it. The dealer, because of the pecuniary bait dangled before him, may sell the animal to one of the institutions that I have mentioned. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will institute the prohibition of the purchase of animals by dealers from children. I ask him to exercise greater vigilance over commercial transactions involving cats and dogs. I urge that there should be tighter police supervision of the registered dealers and their transactions with a view to having those transactions registered so that the police, in case of inquiry, can make the necessary investigation.

In the light of the enormous problems confronting us, this may seem a relatively trivial subject on which to invoke the attention of this great institution, the Mother of Parliaments, and it may seem like using a formidable sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut. But the House recognises that these small matters are the strands of the fabric of human happiness, and it is or this reason that I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the points which I have made and the plea for action which I have put to him.

4.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Maurice Foley)

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for raising this matter, which is of considerable public interest and has not been discussed in this House for some time. Let me say at once that I fully understand and sympathise with the distress felt by people who lose a pet. I fully recognise, too, the added fear and repugnance that such people may be caused if they have any reason to think their pet has been stolen for sale to a laboratory.

I can well understand the attitude of those who wish to eliminate at once all risk of animals being stolen for vivisection. My hon. Friend has made a broad survey of the position as he sees it. It may help us to see matters in perspective if I briefly draw attention to one or two points before commenting on the specific suggestions he has made.

First, I should explain the legal position. The provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, under which experiments on living animals are at present controlled do not extend to the supply of animals for experimental purposes. Laboratory authorities are free to obtain their animals by any legitimate means, and my right hon. Friend has no statutory responsibility in the matter.

The theft of pet animals is, of course, an offence under the ordinary laws of larceny, and it hardly needs saying that those laboratories which buy their animals from outside sources take all reasonable precautions to ensure that their supplies are properly come by in order to protect themselves from the risk of prosecution—and, of course, from public odium.

Next, there is the question of the number of animals at risk. The ordinary population of dogs and cats in this country is numbered in millions. The number of unwanted dogs and cats destroyed by animal welfare societies and other agencies each year is of the order of some hundreds of thousands. The numbers of dogs and cats used for experiments under the 1876 Act during 1964 were 14,036 and 13,169 respectively. The number of convictions recorded in 1964 for larceny of animals was 123.

Over the years, it has often been alleged that dogs and cats are being stolen for disposal to laboratories.

Because of public concern about the existence of an illicit trade in animals, the Departmental Committee on Experiments on Animals appointed in May, 1963, under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Littlewood, was asked to extend its inquiry to include the question of supply of animals. The Committee subsequently invited and received evidence about this matter from interested organisations, including animal welfare and anti-vivisection societies, and from the public.

Inquiries were made also of a number of chief constables about the incidence of pet stealing. Details of the evidence received and the result of the inquiries made of the police in particular areas are set out in chapter 25 of the Committee's Report. This showed that the number of cats reported to the police as missing was a small fraction—3 per cent.—of the number of dogs similarly reported. In one area the number of dogs found and handed to the police was about double the number reported missing. No doubt there is a reflection here of the fact that many cats are strays, and some owners are indifferent if their animals are lost.

I mention this only to emphasise the great difficulty of establishing the facts about the incidence of pet stealing regardless of its purpose. On the evidence before it the Departmental Committtee concluded (in paragraph 531 of its Report) that: stealing of pets for sale to laboratories is small in amount". My hon. Friend has urged upon us a rather different view.

So far as I know the position remains that the police are not aware of any major problem caused by the theft of pet animals. It may be, however, that the position has changed since the Committtee reported in February of last year. My hon. Friend will not expect me to make any judgment here and now. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will of course, carefully consider the statement which my hon. Friend has made this afternoon, and he will be glad to take into account any further information that my hon. Friend wishes to send him on this matter.

Although the inquiry to which I have just referred showed that over 36,000 animals had been reported missing during a three-year period, the number of reports received by the police of suspected theft was much less than 1 per cent. of that total. None of the police forces consulted by the Home Office regarded the stealing of cats and dogs as a problem, and none of them had any evidence to suggest that stolen animals were being sold to medical research laboratories.

I should like now to turn to the specific suggestions which my hon. Friend has made. One proposal was that the Home Office should draw to the attention of the police the prevalence of theft and re-sale of pet animals for purposes of vivisection and the need for the police to exercise greater vigilance to prevent this. I cannot, I fear, give any undertaking on this point. My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the police fail to pay proper and appropriate attention to this matter. The police are constantly under heavy pressure, and unless there are grounds to believe animals have been stolen it would not be reasonable to expect the police to devote undue effort to tracing missing pets.

In making that comment I do not seek to whitewash illegal traffic in pets or to cast doubt on the accuracy of the hon. Member's general statements.

Mr. Harold Walker

I do not wish unnecessarily to protract the debate, but I would ask my hon. Friend to look at the Sunday Mirror of 21st June, 1964, where there is a report of an identity parade of cats at the Physiology Department of Cambridge University, which was attended by cat owners from different parts of the country, who reclaimed the pets, which they identified, just before they were to be cut up for experimental and other purposes.

Mr. Foley

I do not suggest for a minute that there have not been cases of this kind. I just want to put this in its proper perspective. So far as concerns the inquiries that we have made from numerous police forces, including the police force in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend, we have no grounds for thinking or saying that there is a deliberate traffic of considerable size in this respect.

The fact remains that there is no reason for the police to take action unless they have received information from owners of pets or other sources. If anyone has any information suggesting that pets are stolen and resold, whether for vivisection or any other purpose, I hope that he will pass it to the police officer for the area concerned.

Another proposals by my hon. Friend was that consideration should be given to amendment of the Pet Animals Act, 1951, to include words prohibiting the sale of pets to children or the purchase of pets from children. The position now is that Section 3 of the Pet Animals Act, 1951, makes it an offence for any person to sell an animal to a person whom he has reason to believe is under twelve years of age. There has not hitherto appeared to be need to raise this minimum age, but my hon. Friend's remarks on this subject will be closely studied.

My hon. Friend then made two proposals expressly directed at the question of supply to laboratories. The first was that we should take the earliest opportunity to implement the recommendations in the Littlewood Report for statutory control upon the purchase of pet animals for vivisection. The second was that my right hon. Friend should recommend laboratory authorities not to use dogs and cats that have not been specially bred for purposes of vivisection.

As I have already explained, the 1876 Act does not give my right hon. Friend any jurisdiction over the supply of animals for experimental purposes and he has no authority to require laboratory authorities to obtain their animals from any specific source.

Leaving aside that point my hon. Friend's second suggestion would not be free from major difficulty. The Little-wood Committee's attention was drawn to the effort being made by a number of laboratory authorities to breed their own cats and dogs. The Committee noted that this was indeed a growing trend. It also noted, in paragraph 531 of its Report, that …the allegations of malpractice are of long standing and of much concern to the public and the risks are very real. Accordingly, the Committee looked closely at the feasibility of confining the experimental use of cats and dogs to those bred specially for the purpose.

In spite, however, of its eagerness to bring about a situation in which the risk of theft could be eliminated, it was forced to conclude that it would not be practicable at present to exclude from experimental use cats and dogs obtained from outside sources, because it would take several years to build up sufficient breeding colonies for experimental purposes.

In face of the Committee's careful examination and conclusion it would be unrealistic at this stage to tell laboratory authorities that they should use only dogs and cats which have been specially bred for laboratory purposes.

My hon. Friend's further suggestion would require legislation and this is not an appropriate time to discuss that possibility. I hope, however, that I shall not be out of order in reminding the House that my right hon. Friend intends to give very careful consideration to the Departmental Committee's recommendations as soon as he has received views from all the interested bodies.

The views of some of the bodies are still awaited but I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as they are received we shall give particular attention to the suggestion he has made today. I am sorry that I cannot offer my hon. Friend more positive help or prospects for an early solution of this difficult and disturbing problem.

I should like to assure him that we will give very careful study to all that he has said today. We fully share the concern he has expressed at the personal losses involved when pets are stolen.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.