| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Solicitor-General: At present, the inspectorate will be confined to the CPS. Together with the Treasury Solicitor, Judge Gerald Butler is considering the wider issue of the future of prosecutions by Customs and Excise. At present, it is not intended that the remit of the inspectorate will be wider than the CPS itself.
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that reply. I am glad, as the House will be, that the prosecution role of Customs and Excise and of other independent agencies is being considered carefully. There have been errors in the past.
We welcome the Bill; we hoped that it would have speedy progress through the House.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.
Animal Breeding Establishments
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
5.15 pm
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): I express my gratitude to Members on both sides of the House for speeding through the Bill, thus allowing us such a sizeable slice of time to develop the themes that arise in this debate. The regulation and inspection of animal breeding establishments are important issues.
The way a society treats animals is a clear indicator of its wider values. For a nation that is reputedly kind to animals, it is little surprise that here in Britain there are hundreds of organisations and millions of individuals who care passionately about animal welfare. Sadly, the laudable British concern about the wide range of creatures that share this part of the planet with us too often coexists with our inhumane treatment on a grand scale of other sentient beings.
As a parliamentary candidate in the long run-up to the 1997 general election, I was delighted to be campaigning on a party manifesto that had a good deal to say about animals and their treatment. Of the mass of material that the campaign office sent out, perhaps the most requested and the best received was a colourful and well designed document entitled "New Life for Animals". I do not dissent from much that the leaflet contains. It spells out a coherent set of policies that seek to eliminate cruelty and to protect the welfare of animals, not only because there are powerful economic, environmental and health incentives for that, but even more important, because it is morally right so to do.
Like many of those who became my constituents, I was at best uneasy about the scale and nature of animal experimentation. I looked forward enthusiastically to the delivery of our campaign promise to set up a royal commission to review the effectiveness and justification of animal experiments, and to examine the options.
Closely associated with animal experimentation is the welfare of animals that are bred only for that purpose. Laboratories' requirements can be difficult to meet. Experimentation becomes more complex and sophisticated, with animals needing to comply with ever higher standards. If a laboratory needs dogs for an experiment, it will not be adequate to buy them from the town centre pet shop. An animal would obviously be most useful when a complete medical history was known and when there had been no exposure to any infection. Optimal results are gained if a family history is available to enable comparison of test results with those of animals of a similar background. These factors and others have led to the growth of a specialised industry to supply animals to the world of medical and pharmaceutical research.
I take a particular interest in the topic because there is an animal breeding establishment, operated by Harlan (UK), which is located near Belton, in my constituency. Harlan (UK) is the largest breeder of laboratory animals in the UK. Its American parent company is the world's largest privately owned producer of such animals. The regulatory and inspection regimes that cover centres such as Belton are detailed in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and in the associated codes of practice.
I backed the Labour party's call in opposition for a complete review of all aspects of that legislation because I believed it to be seriously inadequate. It is my purpose now to spell out my key concerns. Many animal welfare campaigners find it impossible to separate their disdain for animal experimentation from their disdain for the breeding establishments which supply the animals to the laboratories. Nevertheless, I believe that it is possible to adopt a more rational approach which is not ruled by immediate emotional reactions.
Honest debate and constructive comments about operational standards at breeding centres should not be distorted or disfigured by some of the disgraceful incidents that have been triggered by the tiny number of animal activists who use violence and intimidation as their stock in trade. Harlan (UK) staff members and their families were threatened, harassed and injured last year by such extremists. Such unacceptable behaviour is condemned by decent animal welfare groups. Those actions were both illegal and totally counterproductive.
Partly as fact finding on animal welfare and partly in response to the events that I have described, I went to the Belton complex in June 1999 to talk to management and staff about their work and the environmental and welfare standards to which they operate. I visited the animal areas and spoke to numerous employees. I saw for myself the conditions in which animals were bred, kept and transported.
It was only a brief visit--not in any sense an inspection--but I saw nothing major to raise with local management, especially as I was reassured that husbandry standards, breeding policies and disposal practices conformed to Home Office guidelines. I am sure that they did, and that they still do. However, I had cause to reflect on the adequacy of the guidelines when Harlan received hugely adverse national publicity just a few days after my trip round the plant.
A document published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection accused the company of a variety of violations of the animal welfare standards required by the 1986 Act. The allegations were based on the testimony of a BUAV sympathiser who worked undercover as an employee at the plant for about 10 months and collected 40 hours of video footage and extensive documentation.
The Home Office launched an immediate investigation by the inspectorate, commencing in July, although it did not report to the Minister until just before Christmas. After protracted negotiations with the BUAV on confidentiality, the report, with just a few blocked-out sections, was at long last published this March.
In short, the inspectorate's findings did not bear out the BUAV charges in relation to Harlan's beagle breeding operations. The charges included poor care and husbandry, overcrowding, lack of human contact, premature mating, excessive culling of surplus dogs and inadequate staffing, training and record keeping.
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), the Minister said:
- Generally, the establishment was found to be well run and the level of compliance generally good.--[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 662W.]
I do not intend to make any further reference today to the specific dispute between the BUAV and Harlan and the Home Office about facts and conclusions, save to call for an independent element in such investigations in the future, to reassure the outside world.
I want to deal with the industry-wide concerns that many people and groups such as the RSPCA have about the breeding of animals for experimentation and the general inadequacy of the standards and inspection regimes. I should say at the outset that, while the Home Office codes of practice contain minimum standards, in no way can they be considered best practice.
It is vital that animals bred for research and testing be provided with a good quality and quantity of space, including environmental enrichment that is appropriate for the species in question. That is, I am sad to say, far too frequently not done. The code of practice for breeders and suppliers, covering standards for the housing of animals, does indeed recommend a minimum floor space for dogs, but there is no upper limit for pen size; and as large pens, containing 20 or more dogs, predispose them to fighting and bullying and make it difficult to handle or inspect individual dogs, a maximum number per pen ought to be specified.
Animal lobby groups allege that code of practice animal welfare guidelines are being routinely ignored. For instance, the National Anti-Vivisection Society states that, in 10 years of investigations, it has never seen bedding provided for dogs, despite the fact that the code of practice states that bedding and nesting material should be provided unless it is clearly inappropriate. There are persistent charges in relation to the inadequacies of metabolism cages and the housing of pigs and mice at a variety of different establishments. Those matters, too, need to be rectified urgently.
In relation to over-breeding, there are currently no legal requirements for establishments to state how many animals they breed or cull. Reliable figures are available only for Government-run laboratories such as Porton Down, where--as was revealed through parliamentary questions put by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)--80 per cent. of mice and 85 per cent. of rats were killed as surplus in each of the last two years for which figures are available.
The Daily Telegraph estimated that an astonishing annual total of 5 million animals were being killed as surplus to requirements. On 14 August last year, an article in The Independent on Sunday put the number of "excess animals" at up to 9 million. Those are astonishing figures. I do not know how many of those animals are killed in breeding establishments, but, like the Animal Procedures Committee, I urge that the 1986 Act be amended to require the 170 breeding and 75 supply establishments, which already record the provision of more than 2.5 million animals for experiments, also to record how many animals are bred but found not to be required and subsequently euthanised, or killed for their blood products or organs.
Extensive research by animal welfare groups suggests that correct killing procedures are not always followed and personnel are not always properly trained. The public have a right to know about the mode and scale of the animal slaughter that takes place in our country. The code
of practice has been criticised by the BUAV in relation to weak controls on ages for breeding--especially for dogs. The code of practice should specify a minimum age at which female bitches can first be mated and should give guidance on the age at which they should be retired, or perhaps on the maximum number of allowable litters.Inspection is inadequate. My research reveals that, in 1998, there were 284 establishments liable for inspection; 4,964 projects that needed monitoring; and almost 15,000 licence holders. And how many inspectors are there? Just 21. They have to assess all new projects, many of which will be at the leading edge of research. They have to examine those projects and apply, wherever feasible, the principle of the three Rs--reducing the number of animals used; refining experiments to cut down on suffering; and replacing them, where possible, with non-animal methods.
Inspectors must ensure that all licence holders receive up-to-date training and education, and that all conditions of project licences are kept. In the light of its range of duties and the size of the industry, the size of the inspectorate is patently far too small. It is certainly unsurprising that the number of unannounced visits--which prevent staff from cleaning up and hiding away problems--is low. Would it not be desirable to recruit more inspectors who would emphasise the possibilities of the greater use of research into non-animal methods of experimentation?
I conclude my analysis of the weaknesses of the current legislation and regulation with a brief look at the ethical review process under the provisions of the 1986 Act. In April 1999, it became mandatory for every breeding establishment to form a local ethical review committee. Those committees should provide independent advice, give due consideration to animal welfare, and adopt best practice on the three Rs--reduction, refinement and replacement.
The guidance notes suggest that lay people should be involved. I was quite impressed by Harlan's approach to those requirements when I discussed them with local management. However, evidence from elsewhere is rather less satisfactory. The appointment of lay people seems to occur rarely and, to the knowledge of Naturewatch, animal welfarists have never been invited to take part in any review processes. The code of practice talks about a wide group of people being involved in ethical review, including those who are independent of the establishment. That is not happening in practice.
Like most animal welfare campaigners, I should much prefer it if no animal experimentation took place in this country. However, if that goal is not immediately achievable, the next best aim is to ensure that all animals used are kept to the highest possible welfare standards.
The only realistic direct influence that Members of Parliament can exert is on UK breeding establishments under UK jurisdiction. However, the dilemma is that, if campaigning pressure closes breeding centres, the only alternative sources of supply may be firms abroad, with consequently longer travel times to the research establishments. More important, there would be little opportunity to monitor or influence the welfare of animals produced in foreign countries.
It is probably true that animal welfare regimes in our country are the most rigorously regulated in the world, although many people believe that the standards are still
not high enough. Maximising the benefit to animals of even the present standards requires that those standards be much more effectively policed. The Government could do most to benefit animal welfare by reducing the need for animal data and by funding more research into alternatives to animal experiments, but those are topics for a separate debate.In conclusion, the emotions generated by animal experiments often overflow into unjustified negative feelings towards establishments that breed animals for experimentation. However, unless there is a reduction in the use of animals, the eradication of UK breeding establishments would degrade animal welfare, not improve it.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the much needed improvements that I have spelled out this evening. We have far too few inspectors to police what many people consider inadequate standards of animal husbandry. The figures that are published fail dismally to give the public a true and accurate account of the extent to which animals are used in the experimentation industry. There is a conflict of interest in ethical reviews within establishments, and there are concerns about the independence of those on whom we rely to develop ever higher standards and to monitor existing organisations and operations.
If we really mean what was said in the document "New Life for Animals", to which I referred earlier, it really is high time for us to do something about it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |