Huntingdon Life Sciences: Investigation (Hansard, 24 July 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

I was extremely concerned about the events shown in the Channel 4 programme "Countryside Undercover: It's A Dog's Life", and I know these concerns are shared by members of the public, and by scientists and animal technicians, the vast majority of whom are responsible and caring towards animals.

The Home Office took prompt and firm action. On the morning after the programme was broadcast, the Home Office asked the police to investigate possible offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and, as a result, two individuals have been charged with such offences. In replying to this question, I cannot therefore comment, at this time, about these two individuals or their actions, as this might prejudice the prosecutions.

The chief inspector who heads the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate has also carried out a comprehensive and detailed investigation into the 174WA allegations arising from the programme and into the management and control of animal work at the establishment. I understand that in excess of 250 man-hours of time were spent in viewing more than 20 hours of unbroadcast video material, studying journals and company records, visiting the establishment and interviewing staff (both present and ex-employees). A report detailing his findings and recommendations was submitted to me last week and I commend the Chief Inspector for the speed and thoroughness of his investigation.

The investigation has shown breaches of two of the standard conditions which apply to all Certificates of Designation. Shortcomings relating to the care, treatment and handling of animals, and delegation of health checking to new staff of undetermined competence demonstrate that the establishment was not appropriately staffed and that animals were not at all times provided with adequate care.

My right honourable friend therefore proposes to revoke the Certificate of Designation for this establishment, subject to the consideration of any representations made under Section 12 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, if the proposed revocation took immediate effect, we estimate that up to 1,000 dogs; 10 baboons; 200 marmosets; 450 macaques; 13,000 mice; 35,000 rats; 2,000 rabbits; 4,000 guinea pigs; 3,000 birds; 4,000 fish; and smaller numbers of various other species undergoing scientific procedures would have to be destroyed. In addition, any ongoing work might need to be repeated; this would require the use of more laboratory animals. It is therefore proposed that the revocation will take effect on 30 November 1997.

Revocation would shut down the company, with the consequent loss of 1,400 jobs. While the failures and omissions at the establishment are extremely serious, this outcome would not necessarily be warranted. An application for a replacement certificate could, therefore, be considered if my right honourable friend can be assured that measures have been put in place to prevent any recurrence of the events shown in the television programme. Sixteen stringent conditions have been set which must be met before any new application can be considered.

In addition to the two individuals facing prosecution, my right honourable friend proposes to revoke the personal licence of a third animal technician (again, subject to the right to make representations) and it has been decided that letters of admonition should be sent to two other technicians.

The Home Office, and specifically the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, was criticised for having missed alleged mistreatment, for failure to implement the requirements of the Code of Practice Pr the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures, and for having conducted inspections during which no checks were made on the animals being cared for by the undercover investigator.

I am satisfied that any alleged mistreatment of animals would not have taken place in front of inspectors; that there was compliance with the code 175WA of practice; and that an appropriate proportion of inspectorate resources was directed at the establishment concerned. On each of the visits of inspection witnessed by the investigator, animals in other parts of the dog unit were checked and the performance of regulated procedures observed. The current inspection policy will, however, be reviewed and we have already announced that we will be considering ways of strengthening the inspectorate.

While no breaches of the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures were identified, we are aware of public concern about the conditions in which the dogs were kept. We have, therefore, decided that the inspectorate will audit all commercial dog facilities to identify best practice and innovations with respect to the housing and care of animals, and that this information will be used to inform national standards.

It has also been decided that the need for a code of conduct for the control of dogs and other species in all establishments should be considered.

The Animal Procedures Committee is keen to consider and promulgate to establishments any other general lessons which can be learned in order to help prevent similar occurrences in the future. We welcome this.

The chief inspector's report contains information which was provided in confidence and which cannot, therefore, be disclosed under Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It cannot therefore be published in full.