§ 2. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider arranging a number of open days in 1969 at the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton.
§ Mr. John MorrisYes, Sir.
§ Mr. DalyellI thank my hon. Friend. Would it then be possible to bring this forward to 1968? May I say that I welcome this Answer, in so far as a full open day would help to remove part of the 206 mystery from biological warfare activities?
§ Mr. MorrisI am glad of my hon. Friend's words of welcome for my reply. I hope that the open day will be held in the autumn of 1968, or possibly early 1969.
§ Sir G. NabarroWill the hon. Gentleman explain what value he considers that open days can have in the examination of microbes at Porton?
§ Mr. MorrisWhat I am seeking to do —and I hope that this meets the wishes of the hon. Gentleman—is to balance national security and public interest. I have been to Porton myself recently and I have concluded that there is merit in my proposal, and I commend it.
§ 40. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments on animals have teen conducted on animals at the Porton Microbiological Station in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively; and what were the animals.
§ Mr. John MorrisAs the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. HughesCould the Minister raise the veil a little? What kind of animals are experimented with in this place which has become a Belsen for the animals concerned? Is it not time that the Government had a thorough inquiry into this horror place, in which, thank goodness, the British public are getting more and more interested, and about which they are becoming more enlightened?
§ Mr. MorrisThe scientists at Porton have been subjected to quite intemperate attacks recently. They are doing valuable work, and it is in the interests of the citizens of this country, who must be defended. I hope the open days which I announced a few minutes ago will relieve any public anxiety which may exist. As regards the kind of animals, they are mice, voles, guinea pigs, hamsters, monkeys and sheep.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeWould the hon. Gentleman not agree with those of us who have seen the way in which these animals are looked after, and the efforts 207 which are made to avoid any unnecessary suffering whatsoever, that for those who are looking after the animals there can be nothing but praise?
§ Mr. MorrisI am sure that those who have charge of these animals will appreciate the words of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Littlewood Report highly praises the standards at the Porton establishments.
§ Mr. DalyellWhile praising the enlightened decision which my hon. Friend announced earlier this afternoon, may I ask him if he can explain why it was that the B.B.C. in its recent film was not allowed to show television pictures of the animals, pictures it could easily get and in fact got from Sweden? Why was that decision made?
§ Mr. MorrisThe explanation is quite simple, in that there are, I understand, legal restrictions, not confined to Porton, which apply generally to experiments of this kind, and there are restrictions under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
§ Mr. William HamiltonCould my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that Members of this House should have more facilities for seeing what is happening at Porton to allay—
§ Sir G. NabarroWe have them.
§ Mr. HamiltonWe have not. Could my hon. Friend please consider how Members of Parliament who want to see exactly what is happening at Porton may do so without any restrictions on them?
§ Sir A. V. HarveyOn a point of order. The Minister just attempted to give an answer to a question about B.B.C. responsibilities in this matter. There are other matters about the B.B.C. we should like to question—how Bendit-Cohen got into this country. Why should one Member get an answer and not another?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Chair cannot be responsible for Ministers' answers.
§ Mr. MorrisAs regards Members of the House, I hope that the statement which I made earlier about open days will be generally welcome, and I hope that Members of the House will be invited to go along to see the establishments at Porton when the open days come.
§ Mr. William HamiltonWithout any restrictions?
§ Sir G. NabarroWill the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that he will do nothing to inhibit bacteriological investigation at Porton so long as there are dangers in the world at large of a bacteriological attack on this country?
§ Mr. MorrisI think in one of my earlier answers I made it clear that one had to balance public security, on the one hand, with the interest of the public, on the other. I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that.
§ Mr. HefferReferring to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), has my hon. Friend got it right? Is he really saying that there is an Act of Parliament of 1876 that does not allow films to be shown?
§ Mr. MorrisNo. This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Speaking off the cuff, I gather there are certain restrictions about photographs of animals, to which I believe that the Act of 1876 applies. If my hon. Friends wish further details, I would ask them to direct their questions to the Home Secretary, who is the best person to answer them.
Following is the answer: | ||||
1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | |
Mice | 27,414 | 60,268 | 22,110 | 26,882 |
Guinea-pigs | 4,587 | 1,027 | 368 | 720 |
Hamsters | Nil | 1,106 | 790 | 825 |
Voles | Nil | Nil | 67 | 60 |
Monkeys | Nil | Nil | 10 | 63 |
Sheep | 8 | 16 | 4 | 44 |
§ Note:
- (a) If, for example, ten animals are used in one test this counts as ten experiments.
- (b) The large increase in the number of mice used in 1965 was due to the beginning of a new programme of work on virus diseases concurrently with work on bacterial diseases.