COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 6 May 1986)

§ Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.

We move now to one of the most difficult and finely balanced issues raised by this Bill—the subject of the re-use of animals. Your Lordships will recall that we had a very full and vigorous debate on this matter at Committee and at Report. The House will not have been surprised that debate on this issue was equally vigorous in another place.

The amendment which is before us today was considered at Committee stage in another place and accepted there after a Division on which there was a free vote. An attempt was made to remove the amendment at Report stage but this was defeated on a Division. The amendment alters Clause 14 so as to permit re-use, but only with specific consent of the Secretary of State and only where the animal is under general anaesthesia from which it never recovers consciousness. Your Lordships will recall that the original restrictions in Clause 14 were inserted in the Bill in fulfilment of the commitment given in the 1985 White Paper. In the 1983 White Paper, we had proposed that there should be permitted a limited re- 597 use of those animals which had been given an anaesthetic and allowed to recover consciousness. That proposal was widely misunderstood and attacked and we therefore altered the proposals in the 1985 White Paper.

I should make it clear at the outset that I fully understand the sincere and well thought out views which are held by both sides on this issue. It was because we recognised the nature of the problem and the great sensitivity involved that we adopted a neutral stance during the Committee stage discussion of the matter in another place. However, I must recommend to the House that this amendment be retained as part of the Bill.

The argument in favour of re-use is that it would reduce the number of animals used in experimental procedures. And the form of words adopted in Amendment No. 11 would also ensure that there was no possibility whatsoever of an animal experiencing pain as a result of its re-use, because it would be under terminal anaesthesia during the second period of use. This potential for a reduction in the use of animals is clearly an important feature. The animal welfare group, FRAME, has pointed out that implementation of Clause 14 as it was before amendment would have meant, for example, that two healthy dogs could be given terminal anaesthesia in the same laboratory on the same day; the first because it had previously been used in a procedure which had required anaesthesia; and the second because it would be illegal to carry out an experiment on the first dog in the interval between loss of consciousness and death.

All told, the reduction in the use of animals might not be large. But it is surely common ground that any reduction in the use of animals is to be welcomed, provided that it is not achieved at the expense of suffering elsewhere. A further important point is that it seems likely that re-use will have its impact mainly on the larger animals such as cats, dogs and non-human primates, for all of which we feel an understandable and particular concern. I realise that there are sincerely held views on the other side of this debate. There is the idea that an animal might be forced to endure repeated experimentation stretching on and on. And there is concern that an animal may be left, perhaps in pain, for long periods between the end of the first use and the start of the second and final use. Worries of this sort have been recklessly played upon by the irresponsible branches of the extremist animal welfare movement.

I can well understand these concerns. However, I should point out that the first of them—that animals may be endlessly re-used—cannot arise under this amendment, since the second use must be carried out under anaesthetic from which the animal never recovers. This also ensures that the animal suffers no pain during re-use.

As to the concern about the period which may elapse before re-use is started, this too I well understand. However, the effect of the amendment is that re-use could take place only with the express permission of the Secretary of State. This gives us full control over the circumstances in which re-use occurs. We will exercise this control very strictly. We have prepared draft standard conditions which tightly limit 598 the time interval. We have already agreed this draft with the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation, the British Veterinary Association, and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, and are now going to circulate it to the advisory committee. We will permit re-use only if the animal has not suffered severe or lasting harm and is in a good state of general health. We will not allow an animal to be re-used if it is suffering pain during the interval between the first use and the second.

I believe that this amendment to the Bill achieves a worthwhile improvement. Re-use will be permitted only after the most careful scrutiny and will be subject to stringent guidelines, which will be submitted to the Animal Procedures Committee for approval and will be made available to your Lordships' House and to the general public. I believe that this is the best solution. I am aware that it is a difficult situation but I believe that what we have achieved here is right in all the circumstances. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)