HL Deb 12 March 1984 vol 449 cc482-4

2.46 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many visits the Home Office Inspectorate made during the past five years to establishments where experiments on live animals are carried out; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result of these visits.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, the latest five years for which figures are available are the years 1978 to 1982. In 1978 inspectors made 6,410 visits to departments within 573 registered places. In 1979 they made 5,791 visits to 578 such places. For the remaining years the numbers of visits and places, respectively, were 6,574 and 559 in 1980; 6,743 and 527 in 1981; and 6,316 and 518 in 1982. No prosecutions were instituted as a result of these visits.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that that Answer will give a great deal of satisfaction to those of us who do not like the idea of animal experiments, even though in having to combat malignant illness there is really no other alternative? Can he give an assurance that these inspections really are random? Does he agree that, despite the fact that there have been no prosecutions—which is an encouraging sign—there is still a need for there to be a large number of random inspections, particularly in respect of the less well known pharmaceutical companies, and possibly more than are at present carried out?

Lord Elton

My Lords, indeed the number of visits is, I think, reassuring. The inspectorate has proved an effective means of ensuring that experiments are carried out in accordance with the terms of the Act. I can assure my noble friend that inspectors make unannounced visits and that licensees know that they can be inspected at any time.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the slaughter of dogs and monkeys in order to study the effects of bullet wounds is repugnant to the vast majority of people in this country, and that the attempts to cover up what is happening in Ministry of Defence establishments are viewed with contempt? Is there much point in having the Home Office Inspectorate when these things are allowed to occur?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence Chemical Defence Establishment is registered under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 for the performance of experiments. Like all other such establishments, it is regularly visited by a Home Office inspector. Licensees at the establishment comply with all the requirements of the 1876 Act, and there is no attempt to cover up the practices there.

Lord Somers

My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that there is room for a slight tightening of the legislation on this subject—for instance in the actual number of experiments?

Lord Elton

My Lords, we do in fact intend to look into this. There will not be a Bill this Session. If room could be found in the 1984–85 parliamentary timetable, we should certainly be ready for it. We should be ready for it, but because of the pressures of other candidates for the legislative programme, the Bill may not be ready until later this Parliament.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, following upon the question that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may I ask whether the noble Lord the Minister is aware of the real concern and horror that many sections of the public felt when they heard about animals being subjected to bullet experiments? Would the noble Lord the Minister care to comment generally as to whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is satisfied that everything is being done by the Home Office Inspectorate, not only on inspections but on prosecutions?

Lord Elton

My Lords, of course I cannot answer for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I can only answer for Her Majesty's Government. The inspectorate does conduct a very large number of inspections. I have already said that those inspected do not know when they are going to be inspected and they know that they may be inspected at any time. The minimal use of prosecutions does not mean that the legislation is not in force because the removal of a licence is a final stroke which any erring experimenter is anxious to avoid. Your Lordships should not infer therefore that the legislation is not firmly enforced, because it is.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister care to comment on the first half of my question which related to the horror with which most people heard of experiments with bullets on live animals?

Lord Elton

My Lords, all normal people dislike the infliction of pain. That is why we have legislation to prevent it being wantonly used. It can only be used for a proper purpose, and it can only be used under anaesthesia. Of course there is repugnance—I do not think we need to be reminded of that, it is shared universally—but I do think that the protection of human life and the assistance to human beings to recover from a wide range of malignant diseases and profit from organ transplants—which is wider than the concern which the noble Lord has expressed, but nonetheless relevant—is something of which we ought not to lose sight.