andMr. L'Estrange asked the Minister for Health if he will give an assurance that experiments with living animals as targets to test the effects of plastic bullets and high velocity bullets, such as have recently taken place in the UK and other countries, have not been carried out or will not in the future be permitted in this State.

My responsibilities for the use of live animals in experiments derive from the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. I have not been asked to authorise and, therefore, have not authorised any experiments such as are described in the question.

I am obliged by the terms of the Act to judge each application for a licence on its merits. While I agree that a quite exceptional case would have to be made to justify an application for a licence of the nature referred to, I could not prejudge the decision on any such application by giving a general assurance of the nature sought.

I am disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. Surely, apart from using plastic bullets and high velocity bullets on animals, the idea of using them on human beings should be more abhorrent to the Parliamentary Secretary. We know that rubber bullets have been used in the Six Counties. Now they are going to make them more sophisticated and they are going to use plastic bullets against human beings, but to achieve the sophistication they require they experiment on live animals. The Parliamentary Secretary could surely give an absolute undertaking that this type of experiment will never be conducted in this country.

As I have indicated, this would happen only in exceptional circumstances. In the presence of existing legislation, I am obliged by the terms of the Act to judge each application for a licence on its merits.

What exceptional circumstances can arise in this country where a licence could be granted to such an individual? What exceptional circumstances could justify this barbarity?

The Deputy will agree that the legislation is there and whatever Minister is in power must judge the terms of any application on its merits according to that legislation. Any Minister would very seriously consider the question of granting a licence in such a case.

From the terms of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a strong case to be made to amend the present law so as to forbid such an action in this country? We should not be tied by a law that is so ancient that it is tying the Government's hands in the matter.

That may well be.