HC Deb 21 April 1986 vol 96 cc77-83

'No animals may be exported for the purposes of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the specific approval of the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Gale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 pm
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

With this it will be convenient to take New clause 2—Ban on imports— 'No animals may be imported for the purpose of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the approval of the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Gale

New clause 1 was tabled in my name. However, because of an error on the Amendment Paper it appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). He did not table this new clause and wishes that to be on record. The clause says that: No animals may be exported for the purposes of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the specific approval of the Secretary of State. It seeks to give animals exported for laboratory use the same or similar protections as those afforded under this excellent piece of legislation to animals that will in future be used in the United Kingdom until alternatives are found which obviate the necessity to use animals.

The fundamental principles behind the Bill are that no unnecessary experiments of any kind should be carried out in the United Kingdom, good care should be taken of those animals which are used in laboratories for any purpose and, subject to the pain clause, any experimentation shall be terminated at a given point. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have said that, while we wish to see an end to animal experimentation, the majority of us, on both sides of the House, accept the reality that animals will be used in some experiments for the foreseeable future until alternatives are found through research. That being so, we have gone on to say that we believe that there is no morality in banning certain experiments simply to push them overseas where they will be carried out under less favourable conditions than in this country. To do that would not be an act of bravery, but an act of political cowardice.

The Liberal and Social Democratic parties said in Committee that there have been certain experiments that they would like to obviate. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is in his place, made the same point on Second Reading. There was consensus throughout the Committee that, unless there are genuine alternatives, we would rather see experiments carried out in this country than anywhere else in the world simply because we believe that this legislation will afford the best possible protection for the foreseeable future. The legislation is flexible and it will, therefore, afford the best possible protection to the animals.

If there is no morality in seeking to push experimentation overseas by banning it here, the implication must be that we seek to offer the same protection to laboratory animals worldwide that we seek to offer in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I believe that to permit the export of animals where we have the power to prevent it—which may not be possible in every case—would be as immoral as driving the experimentation to other countries.

There are those who would say that we should not permit the export of laboratory animals at all. We have control over the breeding laboratories in this country and we accept that animals have to be bred in those laboratories for use in this country. Why should we then permit the export of that product? If we are realistic, we must admit that there are certain cases in which, for the forseeable future, until alternatives become available, it will be necessary to permit the export of live animals. For example, there is the work overseas of the Medical Research Council—research into the effects of the tsetse fly and into river blindness and other tropical diseases. On occasion, that work requires the use of specially bred laboratory rats and mice. Are our own scientists working in the field in Africa to be placed at a disadvantage because we are unable or unwilling to allow them to use the animals that they would be able to use if they were carrying out the same research in the United Kingdom? I think not.

There are also limited cases of parallel experimentation. A laboratory in France, for instance, may be carrying out research into disease in parallel with a university laboratory in this country. If the results of the two experiments are to be compatible, it may be necessary to use the same strain of animal. In that case, the animals must come from the same batch and the same laboratory. In those circumstances, there is again a clear case for permitting the export of animals.

It is not only desirable but necessary that the Home Secretary should have the right and the power to control the export of animals. He should be able to require to see a project licence awarded by the committee, just as a project licence will have to be awarded in this country under the new legislation. Unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that the purposes for which the animals are to be used are reputable, and that they will be treated with satisfactory care on arrival, he should simply not grant an export licence.

I had hoped that after I tabled my amendment the Government would table their own. I am acutely aware that that Back-Bench draftsmanship may leave something to be desired, and that what one seeks to achieve through a simple amendment may turn out to be legally impossible. Proposals made in the House sometimes conflict with international law. I hope that that is not so in this instance. If it is, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make plain his support for the principle behind the amendment and his willingness, through additional regulations such as he has already framed in a number of other cases, to implement the spirit of the new clause, if not the letter.

Mr. Michael Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), and hope that the Minister will accept the new clause. I am sure that he appreciates what the hon. Gentleman has said and what is expected of us by the people of this country. We hope that no animal will be imported into, or exported from, this country to be used in an experiment which the Secretary of State is not satisfied will inflict no unnecessary pain. I hope that there will be no wholesale exportation and no loopholes in the legislation that might lead people to believe that money could be made out of the breeding of animals for export and experimentation. The sentiments in the new clauses should be universally accepted. I hope that the Minister will accept them and will make it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State has control over both the import and the export of animals for experimentation. The new clauses have the support of the alliance.

Mr. Mark Hughes (City of Durham)

I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Those who support the Bill and those who have reservations about it are in agreement about the breeding of animals and the licensing of premises from which animals for experimentation are acquired. If we control the breeding establishments used to produce animals used in experimentation, we must make sure that there are no loopholes whereby such animals can be imported from places where there are no licensing arrangements. Breeding establishments in this country can be controlled only if there is an effective control over the import of animals from elsewhere.

All those who are not total anti-vivisectionists will agree that there is a necessity for a proper scientific trade in specific genetic strains to be sent especially for purposes of research into tropical diseases—to the Curie institute and other establishments. One of the major suppliers of such animals is Bantin and Kingman, a firm with a high reputation for producing extraordinarily carefully selected strains which are essential for research at the Curie institute and in many other places in Europe and elsewhere. The ability of that firm to supply the scientific world with research animals of the highest quality should not be impaired, but I do not believe for a moment that the Government's adherence to new clause 1 or new clause 2 would inhibit the proper trade in scientific research animals.

There is one area about which I would be in doubt were it not for the new clauses. I ask the Minister to convince the House that, without the new clauses, there is any protection other than the Ministry of Agriculture regulations for animals in transit. The House has for many years sought to ensure that cattle, sheep, horses and other animals are adequately foddered and cared for when in transit across the Channel and into this country. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that, whether or not the new clauses are accepted, there is completely adequate control over the final destination of exported animals, the provenance of imported animals, and the conditions of transit.

Hon. Members do not relish the trade in animals for experimentation. No one would wish a single rat, mouse or dog to be removed a thousand miles in order to be put to death in an experiment except under the most humane conditions. It is the deep desire of both sides of the House and the sentiment that lies behind new clauses 1 and 2 that imported and exported animals should be subject to the most rigorous control, whence they came, whither they go and how they are treated in transit. The Opposition are suspicious of the Bill as it stands and will continue to be so unless such a guarantee of control can be built into the Bill.

7.30 pm

I have been thoroughly advised that when—as I hope—the Bill is enacted there may be a shortage of certain primates in this country for our breeding establishments. It may be necessary to curtail useful research into essential medical programmes in some important pharmaceutical and veterinary establishments as there may be a shortage of certain species of primates for such purposes. It may therefore be essential to import animals for that research to continue.

In the realm of tropical medicine it may be that we have animals that could be exported for the benefit of mankind. These animals are important because of their genetic purity, which should not be interrupted and they could be exported to laboratories in other parts of the world. I do not believe that the general import-export licence system currently available is a sufficient safeguard. I therefore support new clause 1 and recommend it to the House. We require an additional safeguard and, unless the Minister can support such additional safeguards, I am reluctant to allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading.

I am satisfied that, although the import-export trade is not a major part of animal experimentation, it is one which gives significant cause for concern. We must be satisfied that it is not simply because of commercial interests—because a specific firm derives a certain percentage of its profits from such import-export trade—that we move these new clauses. We are moving the clauses because we believe that such trade should be closely regulated. Licensing should be under the ultimate control of the Secretary of State who should, as I have said, be able to control whither, whence and how animals are moved.

The House should look carefully at the further progress of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)

This is an interesting topic and I appreciate the points that have been made from both sides of the House. It is especially interesting because, although, as the House will be aware, a tremendous amount of work ranging far beyond my Department went into the preparation of the Bill, it was not until a late stage in the Committee proceedings that some hon. Members expressed a desire to see the Bill directly applied to the control of the import and export of animals.

That posed the Government difficulties as the normal procedures of consultation were not possible because of the time element involved. I hope that my comments tonight will offer reassurance on a range of points. I will make suggestions for further progress that I hope will be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes).

I cannot recommend the acceptance of either of the new clauses. However, I believe that I can meet the spirit of most of the points raised on these clauses. I would like to echo what the hon. Member for City of Durham said about the high standards of breeding establishments in Britain. Those high standards will be enhanced by one of the principal effects of the Bill which is to bring supplying establishments under control and fully integrated into the Bill.

It must be borne in mind, as the hon. Member for City of Durham implied, that the exportation of animals plays a significant part in the viability of some of the members of the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association from which we have received such helpful co-operation. It estimates that some 1 million animals—mainly rats and mice—are exported and that that earns some £2.5 million per annum. I mention that point to confirm that there is a considerable trade involved—and that is why it is proper that these points should have been raised tonight—and also to emphasise that it is crucial that there are breeding establishments which are capable of being regulated by the Secretary of State.

No one would want to jeopardise the financial viability of these businesses. The only consequence of such action would be that one of the Bill's crucial pillars—the existence of breeding establishments which provide the overwhelming majority of animals used in British laboratories would be undermined and the regulation of such establishments would be impossible.

There is one point about new clause 1 which I cannot answer satisfactorily. I hope, however, that I will be able to meet all the points raised on new clause 2. I believe that there are two main points in connection with new clause 1. Hon. Members were primarily concerned about the conditions under which animals are transported and the use to which animals are put when they arrive at their destination. There is already a considerable amount of legislation, in connection with the transport of animals. The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 is the main legislation, but I should also mention the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1973, the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 and the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981. There are also two European Community directives on the subject—77/489 and 81/389. The first of those contains detailed requirements on all of the animals protected by the Bill. The latter amplifies these requirements for large farm animals and equidae which may be involved in the Bill but probably only to a limited degree. The hon. Member for City of Durham is an expert on such matters and knows more about this than I do.

The regulations cover a multiplicity of details, including the feeding and watering of animals, loading and unloading and the design of accommodation. Over and above these statutory requirements, I understand that the exporting organisations make strenuous efforts to ensure that the animals which are destined for use in scientific or experimental work arrive in good condition. On that point, I believe that further information will inevitably be provided through the processes of the examination of breeding estalishments inherent in the Bill. It would be fitting, as part of imposing the controls under the Bill, that we give consideration to the adequacy of the orders presently governing the transportation of animals and specifically of small animals which form the bulk of exports. If there is a hiatus in the consideration of the redrafting of the rules, I should like, at an early stage, to consider the advice of the animal procedures committee.

I stress that there is no question of a legislative opportunity to do that being lost if the Bill goes through unamended. Such proceedings could be carried out under an order-making power and that is relevant to the point about which the hon. Member for City of Durham sought assurances tonight.

I would like to face with the candour with which I have tried to debate the issue throughout the one difficulty which I cannot meet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have a duty under the Act to satisfy himself that if animals are bound for the university of Cambridge—or indeed Oxford as I do not want to be pejorative about my old university—they are kept in the best conditions and are used only in the context of procedures that have been properly weighed and balanced under the Act and subject to a project licence that contains all the requirements of the Bill. If, however, they are being exported to the university of Paris or Brussels, with the best will in the world there is no way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be satisfied as he would be in relation to an institution within the jurisdiction.

I see no easy way around that problem beyond using the influence that we have to ensure that more countries ratify the Council of Europe convention and that there is more pressure within the European bodies for the detailed regulation of care and standards that we shall have set in process by the very act of passing this legislation in the United Kingdom. Once the animals leave our shores, it is very difficult for the Secretary of State realistically to exercise the kind of judgment that he can exercise in the United Kingdom. On transportation, however, I believe that what I have said today represents a considerable move in the direction that hon. Members wish.

On new clause 2, I can give much more comprehensive undertakings. By virtue of the arrangements that we have carried into effect in the Bill, animals not purpose bred in a breeding establishment will either come to that establishment from elsewhere in the United Kingdom or from overseas or, under an exceptional procedure provided for in the Bill, in certain circumstances they will go direct to the registered place. I will deal with the latter point first as it is easiest to dispose of.

For schedule 2 animals imported directly into a scientific procedure establishment, specific authority will be required through the project licence. Under clause 10(3) these animals must be obtained from a designated breeder or supplier unless the Secretary of State considers an exception to be justified and necessary for the purposes of the work in question. The more exotic animals are also covered by endangered species legislation. I am therefore satisfied that the provisions for specific authority in clause 10(3) will enable the Secretary of State not to grant permission if he is dissatisfied with the manner in which the animals are to be imported or has any doubt as to their provenance or quality or the way in which they have been handled.

Mr. Mark Hughes

I presume that the Minister is referring to clause 10(3) (b) which states that the animal must be bred at a designated breeding establishment or obtained from a designated supplying establishment. How do the Greeks designate establishments and what power has the Secretary of State over Greek breeding establishments?

Mr. Mellor

I am sorry if I have not got the point across. I am dealing here only with the import of animals direct to a registered place, not to a breeding establishment. Schedule 2 animals must be obtained from a designated breeding establishment unless the Secretary of State is prepared to decree otherwise under the conditions which amendment No. 9 will tighten up, so he will not grant permission if he is in any doubt about the manner in which the animals have been obtained or transported.

When breeding establishments buy in animals, as from time to time they must, we can stop animals coming into those establishments if the conditions in which they are bred or transported adversely affect their welfare or if we think that they will be unsuitable for the research for which they are destined.

The effect of what I have just said is that under the procedures for designating or approving establishments, if the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with regard to the provenance of animals or the manner in which arrangements have been made to import them—in the rare cases, as I suspect, in which the import of these animals is required—such dissatisfaction would be the basis for him to withhold consent for the premises to be registered under the Act. It would also be possible for the Secretary of State to make it a condition of permitting the premises to be registered that no animals are imported into the premises because information has come to him which leads him to think that he cannot be confident of the manner in which it is done.

I believe, therefore, that the matters which are causing concern in relation to importation are dealt with under the existing arrangements and I give the undertaking that our powers will be so used.

7.45 pm

With regard to exportation, I believe that I can go a long way towards meeting the point in the manner that I have described. A principal reason why I cannot accept new clause 1 or new clause 2 is that, broadly stated as they are, I am advised that they would be in breach of Community law and liable subsequently to be struck down in the European Court. I should be reluctant to take that course when, due to the subtlety of the mechanism that we have applied elsewhere, I do not believe that we need to go that far.

On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press the new clauses.

Mr. Gale

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am reassured in part by what he has said, but as he was unable to offer reassurance on the other part of the issue it will not surprise him to know that I am not entirely reassured.

Under clause 7(3), relating to the registration of breeding establishments, the Secretary of State has wide powers and can ask for very specific information. At the very least, I hope that my hon. Friend will now make plain for the record the extreme displeasure with which the Home Secretary would view any breeding establishment thought to be supplying laboratory animals for unsuitable purposes and that that might well be a consideration in the issue, renewal and revocation of licences.

Mr. Mellor

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that that would be a material matter to be borne in mind by the Secretary of State when the issues are weighed up, as they must be, under the powers given by the House to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gale

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to