EXPORT OF ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH (Hansard, 15 November 1966)

§ Mr. Rafton Pounder (Belfast, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the export of animals for vivisectional research and for purposes connected therewith. I wish to make it clear at the outset that my Bill has wide support in all quarters of the House and is not a vivisectionist Measure. The important word is "export" rather than "vivisection".

The support which I have received in recent weeks from a large number of well-known and respected organisations has far transcended the boundaries of the traditional supporters and opponents of vivisection. I am pleased to include the full support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among the protagonists of my Bill, in addition to the British Council of Anti-Vivisection Societies.

I do not propose to enter into any of the ethical or medical arguments associated with vivisection. Such arguments are irrelevant to my Bill, for it has nothing to do with vivisection in this country. It is purely concerned with animal export. In recent days, particularly the two days of this week, my mail has included a tremendous number of letters supporting the principle embodied in the Bill. I have received, over two days of this week, more than 150 letters of good wishes from all parts of the United Kingdom.

What is my Bill and why is it necessary? The Measure would, as I have stated, prohibit the export of animals for vivisection abroad. Such a Measure is necessary, because in no other country is there legislation comparable to the Cruelty of Animals Act, 1876. Although this Act is 90 years old, and is probably in need of revision, particularly regarding the provision of adequate inspection of experiments, whatever its shortcomings, it is unique in the annals of animal legislation.

Section 3 of the Act states quite clearly that '…no experiment calculated to give pain shall be performed on a vertibrate animal with- 230 out complete anaesthesia of the animal during the whole of the experiment, or without the animal being killed before recovery from the anaesthetic if it is in pain or seriously injured. … The animal protection given by the Act is clear and humane and has afforded just pride to us all—to research workers and to animal welfare societies alike.

Although some would contend that comparisons with other countries are odious, I feel that consideration must be given to the fact that certain things which would not be tolerated under the regulations applicable in this country are practised with impunity in many parts of the world.

I do not wish to engage in emotionalism, for emotion is frequently the refuge of the man whose case will not stand critical, reasoned examination. However, I wish to illustrate the point which I am endeavouring to make regarding practices abroad. I have in my pocket a series of authenticated photographs of experiments conducted in a Japanese laboratory. Apart from the nauseating nature of the experiments depicted, the fact which is doubly distressing is that it is abundantly clear that not one of the dogs in the pictures has been anaesthetised. Surely it is wholly undesirable that animals bred and reared in Britain should be sold for use in foreign laboratories, where the protection offered by British legislation does not apply.

How extensive is the practice of exporting animals from the United Kingdom for vivisectional research abroad? Precise figures are extremely difficult to obtain and estimates fluctuate wildly. The best estimate I have been able to obtain is that the trade amounts to several tens of thousands of animals per annum—40,000 to 60,000 animals is the best estimate I can make. These animals include rats, mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, but also a substantial number of dogs and cats.

This trade is growing. Of this, there is no doubt. One company has recently established a large animal breeding centre in Huntingdonshire. It is noteworthy that on its certificate of registration the activities of the company are described as … the breeding of laboratory animals for research organisations mainly in Europe.

§ Mr. Pounder

It is Caworth, of Huntingdonshire. There are also other firms which export animals for research as a subsidiary part of their trading activities. Their number is considerable, although exact figures in this connection are also imprecise.

How could any ban be enforced? On the normal documents required for any exporting activity it would not be difficult to include a sentence stating that where animals are exported these creatures would not be used for vivisectional purposes. Likewise, it would not be too difficult to fine those who contravene such a regulation, in the same way as those who break any regulation can be called to account.

In my view, certain clear obligations devolve on anyone who uses animals in research work; he incurs a moral responsibility to justify his action and a duty to limit pain and give proper care. There is no legislation anywhere abroad requiring proper care of animals, nor inspection of experiments, nor steps to limit pain. The Littlewood Report states that the rôle of animal legislation is to prohibit objectionable activities, and I feel that one such is the export of animals for research.

I commend my humble Bill as necessary to stop what is a growing and degrading export traffic. This Measure is humane, and I hope that I have shown that it is also reasonable in its character. I trust that it will meet with the approval of all right hon. and hon. Members.