HC Deb 30 January 1968 vol 757 cc1093-4

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the power of the Secretary of State to grant certificates to certain persons to enable them to carry out experiments upon animals without the use of an anaesthetic. The object of the Bill would not be to abolish all vivisection. Its purpose would be to bring to an end experiments which are calculated to cause pain unless an anaesthetic is given. Vivisection is still governed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Ninety years ago, very little vivisection was practised. Indeed, in that year, only 300 experiments were performed upon living animals. The figure has now leapt to over 4½ million. If my arithmetic he right, the 1876 number has multiplied by no fewer than 15,000 in the intervening period.

In that period, the law has not been changed to keep pace with the colossal growth in the number of experiments. Indeed, the reverse has been the case, because the spirit and the intentions of the 1876 Act have been frustrated over the years. One of the main purposes of the 1876 Act was to require the use of an anaesthetic whenever an experiment was performed which was calculated to cause pain. A few exceptions were to be permitted, and a system was adopted whereby the Home Secretary was authorised to grant certificates to scientists to exempt them from the need to anaesthetise.

The total number of animals then used was about 300. It follows that Parliament then intended only a fraction of that number to be experimented upon without an anaesthetic. Instead of a fraction of 300 animals being operated upon without anaesthetic, 4 million animals are now experimented upon without an anaesthetic. Thus, it is clear that the intention behind the 1876 Act has been frustrated.

It is now imperative to amend that Act. I accept that many of these experiments may not involve the animal in any real pain, but at least there must be hundreds of thousands of animals, including dogs, cats and of the domestic animals, which are submitted to intense suffering. Sometimes that suffering is prolonged.

The Bill has the support of a large number of doctors and scientists. Many of them believe that the experiments in which no aæsthetic is administered and where there is acute pain are wasteful, repetitive, misleading and morally unjustified. Most of the animal welfare societies have also given their support to the Bill. One exception is the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. The union advocates total and immediate abolition of all vivisection. It will not countenance any compromise as it deems the Bill to be. Compromise or not, I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill as one step forward in bringing to an end those experiments, which often border on the barbaric.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Body, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Gurden, Mr. Houghton, Sir R. Cary, Mr. Maddan, Sir R. Russell and Mr. W. T. Williams.