HC Deb 05 February 1993 vol 218 cc656-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

2.36 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I am very pleased to have secured this debate. First, I congratulate the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection on its campaigning and lobbying work and thank it for the help that it has given me in preparing for this debate, which is the first on animal experiments since the passage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I served on the Committee that considered that Bill, and I must say that the claim made for it by Ministers at the time—that it would stop many unnecessary tests—has sadly proved unfounded.

Let me explain the background. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, something like 5 million tests were carried out on animals. By 1986, that figure had fallen to about 3.5 million per annum. Unfortunately, the Act has significantly slowed that downward trend. The figure still stands at 3.25 million tests per annum, and last year the number of experiments actually went up for the first time in 15 years. The 1991 figure was 3,242,449. That means that during the half hour of the debate, 185 animals will be killed.

The use of dogs and primates fell, although' there were some horrendous cases of primate abuse, to which I shall refer later in my speech and which the Minister has had to acknowledge in correspondence. There has been a 31 per cent. increase in the use of cats, and the figures for other mammals and amphibians are also substantially up. Two thirds of all the procedures were carried out without any form of anaesthetic.

On Second Reading of the Act in February 1986 I said that many unnecessary experiments would go on and that the regulations seem designed to protect the experimenter than the animal."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c.111.] Sadly, that seems to have been borne out. There has been no comprehensive review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I believe that, at the very least, there should be an annual debate in the House about the continuation of animal experiments and the operation of the 1986 Act.

Animal welfare and animal rights groups have undertaken a series of investigations and they have amassed a considerable amount of evidence of the ineffectiveness of the 1986 Act. Even the Minister has acknowledged that. Those investigations are not isolated examples of abuses of the 1986 Act. Every investigation has uncovered serious problems and I want to refer to recent examples of those problems.

In 1989, an investigation by BUAV into the Huntingdon research centre, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the United Kingdom, revealed experiments for trivial products such as food additives and "me-too" products, for products about which human data were already available and for products for which tests on other species had already been carried out.

Cage sizes in the dog unit at the Huntingdon research centre did not meet the minimum Home Office code of practice standards. Other aspects of the code, such as the handling of animals, exercising and dosing, were also not met.

In respect of the London Hospital medical school, BUAV showed in 1991 that sick animals were used in procedures. Veterinary cover was inadequate; under the 1986 Act there should be 24-hour veterinary cover. However, on two occasions dogs died following unsuccessful attempts to contact a vet. Painful experiments were carried out on dogs even though the technique had already been tried on people. In an experiment in relation to anal muscles, the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England records: we do not envisage this technique ever being the first choice operation for patients with faecal incontinence; there are other cheaper, less complicated manoeuvres which should be tried first. However, those tests were carried out on animals.

Eighty-nine-year-old Professor Feldberg was videoed by Advocates for Animals carrying out unlicensed procedures and using an inadequate anaesthetic. In one disturbing moment, a rabbit screamed and struggled to get up while it was being cut into. Despite 14 visits in one year by the inspectorate, no action was taken by the Home Office until after campaigners released the video. That shows a serious inadequacy—the inspectorate's refusal to act in such cases unless it is pushed.

I want now to consider the trade in and use of primates. Many problems with the 1986 Act are best highlighted by BUAV's investigation into the use of man's closest relative in the animal world. Indeed, primates are supposed to enjoy a special protection under the 1986 Act.

Appalling care and handling, sometimes even leading to injury, was recorded on video at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. Quarantine was shown being breached; large numbers of primates died or had to be put down within weeks of arriving at Shamrock; cage sizes and conditions—as was the case in all the investigations—did not meet the Home Office code of practice standards.

The investigation into Hazleton UK revealed inadequate caging and conditions. Monkeys were slapped, punched and taunted by staff. Project licence conditions appeared to have been broken. For example, the laboratory did not give proper information to the Home Office on its project licence application. A vet opposed an operation which he thought would involve too much pain, so the company simply used another vet. The metabolism department was caught carrying out unlicensed procedures three times, but no action was taken. Technicians were operating who were not licensed to perform incisions.

I am pleased that the Minister recognised those problems at Hazleton in a welcome statement that he made in December. However, simply moving the day-to-day care person who is still employed there and implementing retraining is hardly likely to be enough. The malaise goes much deeper than that. I hope that the Minister will give further information. In his letter on Hazleton, he said: I hope that the time may not be too far away when it will no longer be necessary to use such animals … We are therefore considering setting a target date, not too far ahead, after which we would expect all primates to have been purpose bred". When does the Minister propose to phase out the import of wild-caught primates? Many of them die in the process of coming to this country for experiments.

Some problems do not need any investigation to be revealed. Trivial tests, such as those for cosmetics and discredited tests such as the LD50 and the Draize test, continue. The section requiring animal pain to be weighed against potential benefit appears not to be applied. Certainly, the value of a product does not seem to be questioned by the Home Office; it goes ahead and authorises project licences. On cosmetics, 8,000 substances are already known to be safe, and about 89 per cent. of the population want a ban on them. I hope that the Minister will not refer to the EC target date of 1998 as realistic, because the all-party animal welfare group, for example, has said that it welcomes it in principle, but the Council of Ministers amended text may result in little change in the current situation. There is an attempt to seek an agreement with the United States and Japan, which have even worse records in this matter. I do not think that the EC report on the banning of certain cosmetics will come about by 1998.

The Draize eye test involves irritants being administered without pain relief until the animal dies, and the LD50 involves the painful poisoning of animals until 50 per cent. of them die. On Second Reading, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said: The Draize test will not be necessary for very much longer … There will come a time, and it is not far removed, when full alternatives will be possible for the Draize test … the same is true of LD50."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 159.] Use of the Draize test has increased considerably. In 1991, the last year for which figures are available, there were 3,500 Draize tests. That is not a successful record for the Government.

The Government have increased funding for alternatives during 1991–92, but £250,000 for the year is serious underfunding. Government funding was criticised by the Animal Procedures Committee in its 1990 report, and last year it made it clear that funds would need to be increased in future if Government funding is to be effective and appropriate.

There are double standards in the validation of non-animal tests as distinct from animal tests. The eyetex replacement for Draize has not been accepted, despite evaluation of more than 10,000 substances in many laboratories. United Kingdom representatives have been promoting two new animal tests, including penile irritation and rectal irritation, which "Frame" has described as unvalidated, yet those animal tests have been placed on the suggested lists.

Other problems are highlighted by the evidence from animal welfare and animal rights groups. The code of practice standards are not being met at virtually every laboratory that was investigated. Standards are inadequate. Primates are allowed to be kept in cages the size of small filing cabinets. Paragraph 3.54 of the code of practice states: Cages should include wooden perches, a swing, a wooden nest box, a shelf for feeding and sufficient wood shavings to allow foraging. The animals should have space to jump horizontally from one perch to another. If there were perches in the cages of the size set out in the code of practice, there would not be enough room to put in the animals, yet laboratories have cages which are even smaller.

The code of practice is not being implemented properly and the inspectorate has been unable to monitor the Act effectively. The Animal Procedures Committee is dominated by pro-animal research interests and is not monitoring effectively.

The Animal Procedures Committee visited Huntingdon and Shamrock shortly before the BUAV investigation and found nothing wrong. I ask the Minister how that can be so in the light of the subsequent evidence. A review is needed to examine how such faults can be picked up in the future and why faults such as too small cages, lack of exercise and no bedding are being missed.

The project licensing system is failing. It is not preventing repetitive experiments or those where alternatives are available. At the time that the Act was passed, promises were made but they have not been kept. In 1986, the then Minister of State, Home Office assured us that obviously no one would be given permission to use a primate if a rat could be used. However, BUAV's report reveals that a licence was issued for the use of primates, even though the researchers involved admitted that they had no reason to believe that primates would give any more accurate results than those from experiments which they were carrying out on rats. That is a damning indictment of the Act.

It is impossible to list all the problems with the Act, but there are things that are needed. For example, there should be an independent and comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the 1986 Act. I urge the Minister to set up such a review. Other steps could be taken immediately. Trivial and discredited experiments for cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol, the LD50 and the Draize test could be banned. Funding for the planned development and use of non-animal alternatives could be increased.

The inspectorate could be strengthened and the Animal Procedures Committee could be restructured to eliminate its pro-animal research bias. An annual target could be set up to reduce the number of animals used by at least 10 per cent. That would give impetus to the trend away from animal experiments and encourage the use of alternatives. In the fifth environmental programme approved by the Council of Ministers, the European Commission proposed a 50 per cent. reduction in the use of animals by the year 2000. Animal targets are essential if the United Kingdom is to come close to meeting that proposal. I urge the Minister to take action to achieve some of those targets.

2.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)

At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in obtaining the debate and on the constructive form which it has taken and which I shall certainly follow. The hon. Gentleman always argues passionately on behalf of whatever case he raises with my office. I sometimes see him as a latter-day David fighting the Goliath of officialdom, not with a slingshot but by David barnstorming the ramparts of Whitehall, sometimes with great success on behalf of his constitutents.

Animal research is a subject which arouses much emotion, as hon. Members will know from their postbags. Some people believe that animals should never be used for scientific research, and they are entitled to their opinion. That is not, however, a view which the Government hold. We believe that essential medical research must be allowed to continue.

Over the years, there have been great advances in the development of alternative methods and techniques, enabling many aspects of scientific work to be undertaken without the use of animals. Experimentation on tissue, or by the use of computer models, can help enormously, yet it cannot take us all the way. For the foreseeable future, therefore, we are likely to need some animal experimentation if medical research into animal as well as human conditions is not to be weakened immeasurably. For example, there are no acceptable validated alternatives to animal testing for acute and repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity or teratogenicity.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I make some general points. I shall refer to Shamrock and also to Draize and the other cases, where he referred to what may be anecdotal evidence. I shall go through his speech and seek to reply to all the points on which I can give him a reply.

I am not prepared to say to new parents who are worried about cot deaths, or to those caring for an elderly relation whose personality and quality of life has been destroyed by Alzheimers, or to sufferers from cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease or a host of other serious conditions, that the medical research that gives them hope must now come to an end. I am not prepared to say to those who have been saved from life-threatening or disabling illnesses by earlier research using animals that they should have been allowed to die or to continue to suffer. That is the implication of arguing that animal experimentation is wrong and should not be allowed, or should not ever have been allowed in any circumstances.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for controls and I shall seek to expand upon that subject.

Some of those who argue for a total ban accept the logic of their beliefs, and it is their right to do so. Presumably they refuse any medical assistance which may have derived benefit from such experiements, if it is ever offered. Many others, I am afraid, have been misled by arguments that animal experimentation achieves nothing, or that research can always be taken forward by other means. I fear that that is a delusion. We can have medical advance, or a total ban on animal experimentation, but we cannot have both.

What the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act gives us is the best of both worlds, I believe. The choice is not between a-free-for-all in animal experimentation, or no animal experimentation at all. The solution that the 1986 Act provides is a system for judging the justification of animal use against the likely suffering to the animals concerned. The Act provides a triple licensing system—an arrangement, incidentally, which goes further than any of our European partners in ensuring rigorous scrutiny of animal research.

Let me describe some of the elements of the control system that the 1986 Act provides. In the first place, every establishment in which research is carried out must be "designated" by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in advance. The holder of a certificate of designation is thus made personally responsible for ensuring that all the animal work carried out in his or her establishment complies with legal and administrative controls. The certificate will also designate named persons responsible for the day-to-day care of the animals and a veterinary surgeon or other suitably qualified person who can provide advice on the animals' health and welfare. Central to the Act, therefore, is the notion of individuals being personally identified as responsible for what goes on. They know that they are going to be held accountable if standards are ever allowed to slip.

Separately from this, we license the individuals who will carry out research, usually under supervision when they start working with animals. This is essential to ensure that such persons have the appropriate education, skills and training so that the animals they are using do not suffer any unnecessary harm. The training of personal licence holders is obviously crucial. I believe that it has been good in the past, but it has relied heavily on supervision by an experienced licence holder. We are about to make it even stronger through the introduction of formal training courses for those who wish to apply for a personal licence. The Home Office has recently been reviewing in detail the areas of expertise and understanding that must be covered. New guidance on the content and form of training, and on the validation of training schemes, is about to be issued.

Perhaps most significantly of all, we have the project licence. This is where the judgment is taken on the justification for the research. Some propaganda in circulation suggests that researchers undertake animal work for the sheer sake of causing cruelty—that is not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it is put about in some quarters—and with no clear objective in view. That is simply not true of this country and can serve only to spread false alarm and unfounded concern. In this country there are no grounds whatsoever for the accusation, since the law expressly lays down the scientific objectives that the research must be intended to address before it can be considered for licensing at all. Nor is it sufficient that the research should have one or more of the intended benefits in some degree. My right hon. and learned Friend must specifically weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit that is intended, and he must not grant a licence unless he is satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to the feasibility of using non-animal means to obtain the same objectives. Further protection exists in respect of cats, dogs, primates or equidae, which must not be used unless it is not practicable to obtain animals of any other species suitable for the purpose.

The Home Office inspectorate is obviously an essential part of the system, and the hon. Gentleman referred to the inspectors and their role. I believe that we are unique in having an inspectorate of this kind, made up of individuals, each with a medical or veterinary background, who have direct expertise in the field of biomedical research. They perform a dual function under the Act. Their first function is to consider all applications for licences and certificates, and to advise, in the light of their expertise, on whether the places, persons or projects in question can appropriately be approved under the legislation. I have talked of the detailed negotiation in which they are often engaged over the terms of individual project licences.

The inspectors see that as their best opportunity to ensure, before work starts, that proposals are refined as far as possible to minimise the impact on animals. I acknowledge that measuring success is difficult. Indeed, it is sometimes necessary to use more animals in order to reduce the impact on the individual animal. None the less, there is an increasing perception that the detailed discussions over project licence applications have done much to mould attitudes in the scientific community since the introduction of the 1986 Act. Scientists accept the need to justify their proposals and are becoming adept at predicting the likely adverse effects of their procedures on animals and are increasingly enthusiastic in putting forward strategies to minimise these. By definition, inspectors are individuals whose scientific standing is of a kind to enable them to engage as equals with the scientists wanting to carry out the research.

Secondly, inspectors have an important role in inspecting establishments themselves, and in ensuring that animals are properly housed and treated, and that the terms of individual project licences are being observed. It has been suggested that the inspectorate should be made up exclusively of veterinary surgeons. I believe that we should lose significantly if that were the case. Most laboratory animal use is directed towards human health or safety. The strength of the inspectorate lies in the range of disciplines and experience that its members can bring to bear, and in the fact that the same individuals are responsible for inspecting the research in progress as have previously negotiated the terms of the project licence. It is from their knowledge of the licence, and of the factors that led to its being in the form it is, that they derive their particular authority and strength in the course of inspections. Inspections, of course, are spot checks. The onus for day-to-day observance of the statutory and administrative controls and standards rests with the holder of the certificate of designation.

I have mentioned the Animal Procedures Committee, and I should like to stress its role as an independent watchdog of the system, which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. It is nonsense to suggest, as some people outside the House have done, that the committee is made up of persons with a vested interest in scientific work on animals and that it will always take the side of the scientists. By statute, the committee is a balance of those who have a direct involvement in animal experimentation, of those whose principal interest is in animal welfare, and others who fall on neither side—including, at present, a professor of law and a former professor of philosophy. All that I have learnt of the committee convinces me that it performs a very valuable role in scrutinising the working of the legislation, in following up individual issues which have given rise to public concern, such as Shamrock farms, and in providing a rigorous analysis of individual issues concerned with animal research. In that context, I pay tribute to the wise leadership that the committee has received under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan, whose retirement from that post has recently been made public.

Mr. Cohen

I, too, congratulate Lord Nathan on his retirement, but was he not also on the board of the Cancer Research Campaign? While I have a lot of time for that organisation, it carries out more experiments than any other charity. Does that not mean, at the very least, that his position is not neutral?

Mr. Wardle

The committee is not one-sided or made up of people whose sole interest is animal experimentation. It has a balance and, although I do not have time to list them, it has some members whose sole concern—to counterbalance those represented by Lord Nathan, for example—is to represent the interests of animal welfare. I believe that there is a balance. If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will make progress, as time is running out.

The committee is engaged on wide-ranging reviews of two vital issues: the use of primates in research, and toxicity testing. The hon. Gentleman asked about the former. Any announcement from the Home Office will be based on our consideration of the committee's findings. The Government look forward with much interest to hearing the the committee's conclusions on both issues.

One area of the committee's activity calls for special mention. That is the part that it plays in the development of alternatives to animal research. Its research subcommittee—currently under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley—administers a research budget, funded by the Home Office, into means of replacing, refining or reducing the use of animals in research.

The research sub-committee's work is an important element in the Government's efforts to encourage alternatives to animal research, but it is not the only measure we take. We have been active in Europe, for example, in encouraging the search for alternatives to animal testing. We were prominent in encouraging an international collaborative study to assess the scope for reducing the need for the LD50 toxicity test, and the validation and acceptance of alternative fixed dose methods. Very recently the United Kingdom and the EC Commission jointly initiated an international study into means of validating alternatives to the Draize eye irritancy tests. Those are practical ways in which we give force to our expressed desire to see the use of alternatives to animals wherever possible.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Shamrock farms, and I refer the House to the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 2 December stating the action that we had taken as a result of considering the findings of the inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee.

The Government share the view of those who believe in the value of animal experimentation, but believe that such work should take place only where there are strictly identifiable potential benefits, and where there are no other practicable alternatives. We have the most rigorous and extensive of systems for ensuring that only justifiable research takes place, and for policing the operation of approved work. There is no system that is not capable of further improvement and that is why I look forward with much interest to the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee on its current areas of study, and to the further reviews that it will no doubt undertake in future. But I am confident that we have a system in the United Kingdom which provides the best possible guarantee of animal welfare, set alongside the justifiable needs of scientific research.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.