§ 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.
688 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 know that the BUAV found the report a huge disappointment, and it has now made a detailed and critical response to the Home Office about the interpretation of evidence and what it sees as a desire to exonerate Harlan at every turn.689 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 690 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 691 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.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)It is a great pleasure to reply to this debate on what is an enormously important matter. The thoughtful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) set out his case is an approach that needs to be encouraged on all sides of the argument. Too often, issues relating to animal experiments are presented in a very emotive and purely emotional way. Newspapers carry pictures of monkeys with electrodes in their brains, but I sometimes think that those pictures should be accompanied by pictures of children having convulsions, as those two images would encapsulate the serious moral dilemmas with which the debate presents us.
Scientists claim that developments in medicine have largely depended on the use of animals in research and that, without the many advances that have been made in medical knowledge, many more people—and animals—would have died. They say that it is therefore necessary to carry out animal experiments.
The more extreme of the animal welfare organisations say that no research is ever justified if it involves the use of animals, as human beings have no right to use animals for our personal gain. The more moderate elements in the animal welfare lobby say that some experiments may be allowable but that, in all cases, suffering should be minimised, and that only an absolute minimum of animals should ever be used. That is a far more reasonable position.
The Government believe that, at the moment, it is necessary to carry out some scientific research using animals. It should minimise the anguish or injury caused to animals and maximise the level of care, in so far as we 692 can, commensurate with ensuring that we get the scientific results that are often necessary to save lives—not only those of human beings, as I said, but those of animals.
The way forward is through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It makes provision for the protection of animals bred, kept or used for scientific or other experimental purposes. Protection is currently extended to all vertebrate animals and one invertebrate species—the common octopus.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all establishments in Britain that breed and supply laboratory animals of the types listed in schedule 2 for use in scientific research and testing must be designated by a certificate issued by the Home Secretary. Schedule 2 includes, for example, the commonly used rodent species, ferrets, cats, dogs and non-human primates. The legislation also regulates the breeding of all protected animals that have been genetically modified or are considered to be "harmful mutants".
The certificate of designation sets out the detailed conditions that approved establishments must meet in carrying out their day-to-day operations. In the case of harmful mutants and genetically modified animals, conditions on project and personal licences enforce additional requirements.
Establishments designated under the 1986 Act are required to provide a high standard of care and accommodation, and trained and competent staff, and to treat animals with care and respect at all times. All certificates identify by name the expert staff responsible for advising on the accommodation and care of animals, and vets to advise on animal health and welfare. The 1986 Act also provides for the inspection of establishments licensed under the Act. Inspections are performed by the animals scientific procedures inspectorate. The inspectors all have medical or veterinary qualifications.
The purpose of the inspection programme is to assess standards and compliance with legislative requirements, to report any non-compliance and to advise on the action to be taken. The inspectorate broadly promotes the best standards of accommodation and care; it is proactive in identifying and spreading best practice, thus continuously raising national standards. It is playing an active role in the development of improved standards of care and accommodation proposals being drafted by the Council of Europe.
There are 300 or so designated establishments. The 21 inspectors currently carry out 1,800 visits of inspection each year, spending of the order of 5,500 hours on site. On average, each licensed establishment is inspected six times a year. I can reassure my hon. Friend that two thirds of these departmental visits of inspection are performed without prior notice being given. Visits are generally made with notice only when it is necessary to meet with or interview specific members of staff. The inspectorate has access to all the detailed records that must be maintained by all designated establishments and to all parts of the establishments where animals are held or procedures are performed. Summary details of the inspectorate's inspection programme are published annually in Home Office annual statistical reports of animals used in United Kingdom laboratories.
In addition to the conditions set out in their certificates of designation, breeding and supplying establishments must also comply with the standards laid down in the code 693 of practice for the housing and care of animals. This code of practice exists to ensure good husbandry, and to safeguard animal welfare. It was issued after extensive consultation within the scientific community, with laboratory animal breeding organisations, and with organisations concerned with the welfare of animals. Its publication was welcomed by a number of animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. In the case of genetically modified and harmful mutant animals, similar provisions are made in a code of practice for the accommodation and care of animals used in scientific procedures.
With effect from 1 January 1999, schedule 2 to the 1986 Act was amended to include ferrets, gerbils, sheep and pigs, if they are genetically modified. I will shortly be issuing new codes of practice for the care and accommodation of ferrets and gerbils bred for laboratory use, and for the welfare of high health-status genetically modified pigs that may, at some stage in the future, be used as source animals for organs to be used for xenotransplantation.
§ Mr. David TaylorWill my hon. Friend confirm that the housing standards for animals that are already covered by the code of practice and regulations are kept under continual review? I referred to pens where the minimum size of pen per dog is specified, but the maximum size of pen is not. That causes problems for those who run the establishments.
§ Mr. O'BrienWe try to keep the codes under regular review to ensure that they comply with the standards that we require. As I have already said, the objective of the inspectorate and the codes of practice is not just to maintain a basic level for as long as the codes operate, but to look at ways in which we can constantly improve on the quality of care that is available to animals that are used in scientific experiments.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, we keep the codes under review, but I cannot assure him that they will be changed very regularly. That would have implications. It is better to have codes of practice that people can work to for a period of time. In due course and following a proper review, the codes can be amended and improved.
The new codes of practice were drafted by the inspectorate in collaboration with leading UK experts, and the Animal Procedures Committee has advised me on their content. The Home Office code of practice sets out minimum standards for the accommodation and care of the animals. As breeding animals are typically kept for longer than animals used in animal procedures, the codes also pay particular attention to the need to ensure that the environment provides for the behavioural as well as the physiological needs of the animals.
As well as generally applicable standards, the codes of practice also set minimum standards to meet the specific requirements of individual species. Although I have described them as "minimum standards", the standards set out in the Home Office code of practice represent current good practice. These standards meet—indeed, generally exceed—the requirements of the relevant guidelines for 694 the protection of animals bred and kept for laboratory use appended to the Council of Europe's convention ETS 123 and the European Union directive 86/609 EEC.
Nor do we rest on our laurels as regards the application of the standards. Through its inspections and contact with establishments, the scientific community and animal welfare representative groups, the animals scientific procedures inspectorate closely monitors developments and best practice in the housing and care of animals and facilitates changes in practices and standards when this will bring about improvements.
For example, the publication and implementation of the good practice recommendations contained in a recent inspectorate audit of the accommodation and care of dogs bred and kept for laboratory use has been welcomed by a number of organisations with an interest in laboratory animal welfare, such as the RSPCA and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. The inspectorate also supplies expert advice to other organisations working on initiatives to improve the welfare of laboratory animals.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the inspectorate's investigation at Harlan Hillcrest UK was instituted in July 1999, by my predecessor as the responsible Minister, following receipt of allegations—including allegations of breaches of welfare standards—received from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. The allegations were based on the evidence of a sympathiser working undercover at the establishment. Harlan is an establishment that was designated under the 1986 Act.
I received the inspectorate's report in December 1999 and published it in March 2000. The inspectorate's investigation took more than 1,000 man hours to complete and looked critically and in detail at every aspect of Harlan's standards and performance. Generally the establishment was found, on inspection, to be well run. The level of compliance with the legislative requirements and the expected standards of care and accommodation was found to be generally good—and, again, I add "on inspection." Inevitably this degree of scrutiny also highlighted some shortcomings—though in no case was animal welfare found to have been compromised as a result.
I did, however, take action against one breach of a condition of certification. On two separate occasions during a two-year period, one animal room housing rodents had apparently not been checked at least once a day as required. The certificate holder was admonished for this lapse. The inspectorate report also expressed concern that when key staff were absent, the establishment's staffing levels resulted in junior management tasks being compromised as manpower was re-assigned to make proper provision for the care of the protected animals. I have therefore also sought and received assurances from management about Harlan's future staffing levels.
I am not of the opinion that the findings of the Harlan investigation, or the other findings of the national inspection programme, have identified any significant welfare problems with respect to proper implementation of the current codes of practice.
We are working within Europe to develop revised standards that make best provision for the housing and care of laboratory animals based on their biological and behavioural needs. I believe that all reasonable efforts 695 must be made to ensure that the standards are not compromised and that welfare is not diminished unnecessarily in the name of secrecy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire suggests that some independent element should be present when the inspectorate conducts investigations similar to that into Harlan. BUAV and others have made a similar request. I am giving some thought to how that might be taken forward, but we have not yet reached a final judgment. It would be premature to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer, but I have some sympathy with the view that he has expressed, and I am considering how best we can provide the inspectorate with safeguards against allegations of partiality, which I believe the inspectorate would also wish to avoid.
§ Mr. TaylorI welcome the possibility of change in that respect. Is movement possible in respect of the recommendations by the Animal Procedures Committee of wider publication of the statistics on animals culled because they are no longer required or are of the wrong type or whatever? The figures produced by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers are horrific.
§ Mr. O'BrienWe want to respond on those issues, and I am giving some thought to how we might do so. I shall make a few points along these lines shortly, but the issue that my hon. Friend raises is a very important one. We are looking carefully at how we can best deal with it.
My hon. Friend made particular reference to the fact that there was no upper limit on the size of pens for dogs. He concluded that large pens make fighting and bullying more likely and to some extent, impede the handling and inspection of individual dogs. The inspectorate investigation at Harlan specifically looked for a link between the size of dog pens, the maximum number of animals held in pens and the level of aggression, but was unable to find such a link.
The inspectorate investigation did, however, identify a number of issues that will be of interest to all certificate holders and others. Where they reflect current perceived best practice, they will be incorporated into Home Office initiatives to raise awareness and further raise national standards. For example, plans are being made for some of these to be taken forward with all dog breeding establishments licensed under the 1986 Act to raise awareness and ensure the highest possible welfare standards.
Like my hon. Friend, I am aware that certain laboratory animal breeders and suppliers have been subjected to what can only be called a systematic and organised campaign by animal rights activists in order to undermine those businesses. Some of the activities have involved intimidation and violence against individuals conducting their lawful business, and damage to property. I spoke recently to two ladies who had had their cars burnt out outside their homes. Their children were at home and the car suddenly exploded into flames. It is a matter for the police whether protesters were involved in those instances, but I understand that they occurred on the same night and that the two individuals worked for the same laboratory. In those circumstances, clearly there was a great deal of trauma and distress for the individuals involved, as well as their families and their children.
I share my hon. Friend's revulsion at that kind of behaviour. If protesters were involved, it is a reprehensible act on their part and I hope that it 696 undermines whatever support they might otherwise get. While supporting the rights of organisations and individuals to campaign lawfully and peacefully—as many of them do, perfectly properly—the Government condemn unreservedly those who use repellant tactics such as violence and intimidation, and wholeheartedly support the police in their continuing efforts to combat those who use such repulsive tactics.
Turning to the overbreeding of animals for laboratory use, the Animal Procedures Committee examined that subject as part of its review of the 1986 Act, as my hon. Friend said. The Committee concluded that, while some overbreeding is unavoidable, it should be minimised, and put forward some basic principles of best practice. The Laboratory Animal Science Association has also reviewed the topic, and information collated by it suggests that the extent of overbreeding is far less than suggested in recent newspaper articles. The Animal Procedures Committee has said that it will take the results of LASA's considerations into account before finalising further advice to the Home Secretary later this year. Once we have received that advice, we shall be in a position to take forward some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ethical review process, which stems from "New Life for Animals", which said that larger establishments would have to set up welfare committees. As defining larger establishments would have been difficult, we decided to require all establishments to set up a local ethical review process by 1 April 1999, which was achieved. Those processes examine ways in which the welfare of animals could be reviewed and review project licence applications before they are submitted formally to the Home Office. Recognising that establishments vary in size and nature and in the type of work that they conduct, we described what those processes must achieve, rather than how they should work. They are not meant to increase bureaucracy or replace the inspectorate, but help foster and promote the principles of the 1986 Act and a culture of care within establishments. Scientific researchers have recently indicated that they have some concern about the level of bureaucracy entailed by the procedures for making applications.
We have no intention of allowing the proper welfare of animals to be undermined or of unnecessarily relaxing procedures, but at the same time, we have no intention or wish to have unnecessary bureaucracy or red tape that prevents proper scientific research. It is a matter of getting the balance right and of ensuring that procedures to consider the ethical nature of an application are conducted speedily and properly and that they look fully and robustly at the ethical issues involved.
I want carefully to consider the way in which the ethical review process works. I do not want a situation in which, as a result of our deciding to adopt a relatively light touch on regulation, which lets the establishments devise much of their own ethical review process, some inadvertently gold-plate their own procedures and therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. There may also be other areas in which we can ensure that we protect the welfare of animals effectively and fully, while ensuring that unnecessary bureaucracy is minimised.
§ Mr. TaylorCan my hon. Friend reassure me that there is at least the possibility that the people who may be independently appointed to ethical review committees will 697 include individuals with an animal welfare perspective? In its research, Naturewatch had not found that any such person had been appointed to an ethical review committee, and that is an important point.
§ Mr. O'BrienCertainly we want to ensure that the ethical review committees include people who are concerned about the welfare of animals, as well as the necessity of conducting proper scientific experiments and research. I will not reassure Naturewatch that it can decide who is to be appointed to particular research establishments; that would not be acceptable.
However, we will want the establishments to include on their ethical review bodies people who are known to have a concern for animals and their welfare. We want to ensure that a lay member, who may be drawn from the establishment or from outside, is also involved, but we particularly want outside lay members to be involved at all establishments, and we will continue to encourage that. I cannot ensure that such members are always from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or other such organisations, but I say to establishments that such people should not be excluded. I am told that the establishments' approach is not to exclude members of reputable animal welfare organisations. I shall look into that issue for my hon. Friend.
698 My hon. Friend is right to say that the whole debate about animal research has all too often been shrouded in emotionalism. It is perhaps right that when animals are suffering we should have an emotional response, and it is right too that when other animals or people, particularly children, are in need of medical advances to cure their illness, we should respond emotionally. It is understandable then that there is an aura of emotionalism around the debate.
At the same time, however, it is important that we do not allow the debate to fall into two polarised camps of those who believe that it is all about protecting animals and others who believe that it is all about making sure that science moves forward to establish cures for illnesses. We must get the balance right so that we allow proper scientific development. In the course of doing so, we must ensure that we do not in any way abuse our power over animals and that we have proper concern for their welfare and protection.
The Government are committed to high standards of animal welfare in those important areas of work, and we are keen that standards should be raised where demonstrable welfare benefits can be obtained. I thank my hon. Friend for raising those important issues and for his suggestions, to which I shall give further thought.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock.