§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any dogs are used in research at his Department's establishments which (a) have previously been pets, (b) have been obtained from animal sanctuaries or (c) might otherwise have been destroyed as unwanted;
(2) whether any dogs are used in research at his Department's establishments which are not purpose-bred.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what species of animals and how many have been used in work over the past five years in the United Kingdom contributing to the protection of British forces against attack with nerve agents;
(2) what species of animals and how many have been used in experiments over the past five years in the United Kingdom to investigate the interaction of microbes and the host and to devise medical measures such as chemotherapy and vaccination.
§ Mr. LeeI refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 March 1984, at column 570, in which I explained that, as is the case with many other defence activities, a great deal of the work of the Chemical Defence Establishment must be protected in the interests of national security. To make detailed information available—for example statistics on the usage of particular species—could in many cases enable an informed observer to gain a useful insight into the scope of the Chemical Defence Establishment's work and the line particular research is taking to the detriment of national security. This is such a case.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many dogs and of what breeds have been used at Porton Down or other of his Department's establishments to test wound effects from ammunition in each of the past five years.
§ Mr. LeeI presume the hon. Member is referring to wounding studies carried out at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down to increase knowledge of the effects of wounds, not to test ammunition performance. As I made clear in the answer given on 21 March 1984, at column 570, no dogs have been used in such work.