§ Mr. LivseyI beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33 at end insert—
`(3A) A project licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the possible use of non-animal techniques has been thoroughly considered and found not to be practicable.'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 12, in page 4, line 34, at end insert—
`(3A) A project licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the possible use of non-animal techniques has been thoroughly considered and found not to be practicable.'.No. 13, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
`He shall consider also whether non-animal techniques can be used to reduce the number of animals used in the programme and what techniques can be used to reduce any animal suffering entailed in the programme.'.Government amendment No. 15.
§ Mr. LivseyThe amendment seeks to ensure that non-animal techniques are thoroughly considered, and that they are included in the spirit of the Bill. The Minister has stated that under the project licence application system this will naturally be done. But he agreed with the spirit of the amendment in Committee, and said that he would table an amendment to that effect. He has done so in Government amendment No. 15.
The amendments are stated in the Home Office guidelines, but it is felt that the matter is of such importance that it should be written into the Bill. The Government have continually stressed that that is the aim of the Bill, so why not include it? Some foreign laws contain similar provisions. I refer, for example, to the German animal welfare Act. The amendment would give animal welfarists much more legal power to ensure that the number of animal experiments is reduced. It would place 95 the burden on the researcher to prove that alternatives were not available, as opposed to relying on the Government inspectors.
The amendment stresses commitment through pressure, and would help to prevent unnecessary animal experimentation when it was economically better than pursuing a non-animal alternative. This is particularly true in the case of rats. Many scientists feel that non-animal techniques sometimes provide better results, such as in tissue cultures. Ciba Geigy estimates that out of 3,000 chemical compound tests, only 20 show enough therapeutic activity and low enough toxicity, on the basis of animal tests, to be tested on human volunteers. Of those 20, only one ever becomes a prescription drug. That is a 5 per cent. success rate.
That alone seems cause enough to pursue alternative methods. For example, we could consider computers to replace living animals. There seems to be tremendous scope for such work to be done. The problem with the Minister's amendment is that it places responsibility on the individual to ensure that he has given
adequate consideration to the feasibilityof pursuing options not involving the use of "protected animals". First, what is adequate consideration? Secondly, and more importantly, how does one define "feasibility"? Does it mean that economically it is not feasible to pursue an alternative because a research project is not sufficiently funded?
§ Sir Dudley SmithI support the Government's amendment, which my hon. Friend the Minister promised us in Committee. It is very useful. The House and the public wish to move as quickly as possible towards experiments that do not involve the use of animals. I very much subscribe to that view. However, although I am not a scientist I am advised that the number of experiments that could be done without animals in some types of medical research is very limited. Work is going on to try to find a solution, and we hope that it will prove successful. One day—perhaps not in our time—there will be no need to use animals in experiments, but until that happy day we shall have to continue with such experiments in the interest of man's humanity to man.
In case anyone has any dubiety about the use of animals by pharmaceutical companies I shall repeat what I said in Committee. My evidence, and that of many others, points to the fact that those who handle the animals do so very carefully and feelingly. They do not particularly like having to use animals for experiments. At the most basic level, it is quite expensive to use animals in experiments, and if cheaper ways of experimenting could be found it would be very useful.
Unfortunately, some people do not want to understand what goes on, but others cannot understand what goes on. No one has his mind closed to the prospect of getting rid of animals in experimentation. However, in the interests of mankind, it would be dangerous not to have a fully-fledged system in operation that is at least as effective as the present system.
§ Sir Gerard VaughanIt is a sad fact that those working on the AIDS virus, which looks like causing such a terrible disease, tried desperately hard not to use 96 animals. They looked at all sorts of animals, but at present the only animals that the AIDS virus can be developed in is the monkey. Most of us do not want to see monkeys used, but there is no alternative.
§ Sir Dudley SmithMy hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of a medically qualified man. I had heard that rumour, and am glad to have his confirmation.
Opponents of the Bill may say that AIDS is a disease that man has inflicted on himself. However, that does not help the thousands of people who have it, are likely to get it, or who become infected with it in some unusual way, other than the ways that have been explained to us.
Mankind would fail in its duty if it did not try to find a cure for that dreaded disease and did not carry out experiments with the object of conquering it. I shall not weary the House with a long list of dread diseases in years gone by. Many of us would have died in childhood if there had not been animal experimentation. But the advances of modern medicine have eliminated many of those diseases. That could not have been achieved without animal experimentation. The House and the public would do well to bear in mind the very relevant comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan).
§ Mr. CorbettOne of the things that needs saying in this debate, perhaps not for the last time, is that it must be hoped that the Bill will set a climate which will cause those applying particularly for project licences to think twice or maybe three times about what they are proposing to do. Indeed, the only way in which the Bill can work, never mind the machinery which it puts in place, is if that is the starting point for the consideration, let alone the application, of those project licences.
Everyone who has taken part in the debates on the Bill has argued that its ambition must be to try to ensure that fewer animals are used in fewer experiments. That has been one of the major criticisms of people outside who have said that nowhere does the Bill say that that should be one of its major aims.
Clause 5 lays down the grounds on which experiments can be carried out, but nowhere in the Bill, except by inference, and in the guidance notes, does the Bill lay down that project licence applicants should be able to demonstrate that they have considered, and for reasons which they can demonstrate have said do not apply, non-animal alternatives to what they are proposing.
The Minister will acknowledge and understand that there was strong pressure on Second Reading and in Committee for that to be written on the face of the Bill where it could be seen by everyone rather than tucked away in the notes of guidance which are not so easily available. Against that background, I am glad that the Government have responded to that pressure with amendment No. 15, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome and support it.
§ Mr. FryI thank my hon. Friend for amendment No. 15 which, as he appreciates, is in response to the amendment that I moved in Committee which was supported on both sides. I shall say no more on amendment No. 12, but I should like my hon. Friend to say a few words on amendment No. 13. He will note that that goes a little further than merely talking about alternatives. It goes into the question of whether techniques can be used 97 to reduce the number of animals used in a programme and also what techniques can be used to reduce any animal suffering.
In Committee we had a short debate on what is known as refining projects and one reason for my tabling this amendment was to draw attention again to the need for those who are going to apply for licences to be aware that there are possibilities of refining experiments, about which they are not always aware. It is the obligation of the inspectorate, in particular, to draw to the attention of those who are applying for licences where such refined experiments can take place. I hope that my hon. Friend will note that point.
§ Mr. HancockMy hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) questioned the words "feasibility" and "adequate consideration" in the Government amendment. Will the Minister dwell on those points and explore the possibilities? Does that mean that it may not be feasible in the time available to obtain the necessary components to create a non-animal alternative to the testing of an animal so that an animal is then used for the sake of convenience? May it not be feasible to obtain a computer result, which may be more accurate, because the researcher does not have access to such a computer? Could it be that adequate consideration may have been given to looking for one but that it could not be obtained because commercial expertise was jealously guarded by another manufacturer who carried out experiments of that nature? Has the Minister explored the possibilities of when his discretion will be used, bearing in mind the words "adequate consideration", the alternatives, the cost involved and so on? Those are important points.
I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way to meeting the points raised in Committee and again this evening, but those two questions need to be answered.
§ Mr. MellorI am grateful to most of those who have spoken for recognising that the Government's amendment is worth while. Certainly its aim is to put on the face of the Bill one of the crucial elements—but only one—in the judgment that has to be made about a project licence, and that is whether there is an alternative.
In defence of the amendment I should say that it is slightly more radical than others because it specifies not non-animal alternatives, but alternatives that do not involve the use of protected animals. That means that, if using man is a viable alternative, a protected animal may not be used.
Interestingly, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) neatly exposes the Morton's fork which one always faces in such arrangements. The great argument against putting a matter such as this on the face of the Bill is that, far from adding clarity, it reduces it because statutory words have to be weighed in a manner in which clear explanations in guidelines would not have to be weighed. That is one reason why I am all for rejecting putting things such as the pain condition in the statute. They are much better in guidelines, where the practical effect is the same.
Self-praise is no recommendation, but there are few who have shown their devotion to alternatives more than I, so of course I am pleased to embrace the amendment. But the hon. Gentleman, having been one of those who asked for it, now asks what feasibility means. All I can say 98 is that the aim of the parliamentary draftsman has been to put into the Bill—I believe that he has succeeded—what we have always said we were setting out to do, and that is that no project licence should be granted if there is an alternative method that would involve the use of a non-sensate alternative or, in appropriate cases, animals that are not protected under the Bill, which might be man or invertebrates. I hope that that is what feasibility means. The Parliamentary draftsman assures me that it does and I hope that he is right. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will, I hope, not mind me saying that he is more likely to be right than the hon. Gentleman on the evidence that we have had so far.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the words of caution about putting too many things on the face of the statute when we come to consider proposals to do more of that later. It is worth while asserting on the face of the Bill our commitment to alternatives, and that is what we are doing.
The Government's amendment is framed so as to place the burden on the applicant to satisfy the Secretary of State. It is not for the Secretary of State to satisfy the applicant about anything. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Secretary of State that he should be granted a project licence. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, on the evidence presented by the applicant, he has made out a good case for the use of protected animals, that consent will be withheld.
The reduction in the number of animals used and the reduction of suffering is at the heart of the Bill. The project licence will be geared to make judgments, first, about the type of animals that might be used. Obviously, if a rat can be used, no one will be given permission to use a primate, very much along the the lines described by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), a propos the work that he says is going on in AIDS. Secondly, permission will only be given to use the minimum number necessary and tremendous scope has been found to reduce the number of animals already in, for example, some toxicity tests where unnecessarily large batches were used; we shall not permit that.
Currently, there is an upper limit on suffering—the pain clause—and everything is all right provided that it does not violate that pain clause. A major step forward in the Bill is the provision that, as part of the balance that must be struck between the purposes of the procedure and the severity of the procedure on the animal, only a limited number of procedures will be allowed to approach the old pain condition and the others will be scaled down to lower categories. That is just part of the Government's approach to this matter.
9 pm
I hope that hon. Members will not want to proceed with amendment No. 7, but will accept Government amendment No. 15. When an amendment is available that has been drafted by parliamentary counsel, it might be for the benefit of the House to accept it rather than the other amendment. I am grateful for the indication that that appears to be acceptable to the House.
§ Mr. LivseyAmendment No. 15 is a great improvement on the previous position and I accept the spirit in which it has been explained by the Minister. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
99
§
Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall not grant a project licence unless he is satisfied that the applicant has given adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence by means not involving the use of protected animals.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]