Animal Procedures Committee

HL Deb 01 March 1993 vol 543 cc508-26

9.4 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question asks the Government for their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee which was appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The report comes to us once a year from a committee that is required by the 1986 Act to report direct to Parliament once a year. The report has an extremely fascinating companion for bedside reading, which is entitled Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 1991. Taken together, the two provide probably the most elaborate report on the treatment of animals in laboratories of any country in the world—and we must be grateful for that.

I shall be as brief as possible, but I cannot let the occasion pass without saying a word of respect and gratitude about the founding father of the 1986 Act and all its beneficent works. I refer to the right honourable David Mellor who was the Home Office Minister who shaped and produced the 1986 Act. He moved mountains in the Home Office. He moved mountains where his contemporaries had not been able to move the cobwebs from the files on this complicated and controversial issue which had been kicked about in the Home Office year after year on the grounds that the 1876 Act was still good and had been adapted, so it was not necessary to introduce anything else. David Mellor cast all that aside. He held consultations with many people from all quarters and together we produced an Act of Parliament which has stood the test of the first five years remarkably well.

I must say a word too about the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whom I am glad to see in his place tonight. He has been chairman of the committee for the past three years—three of the committee's five formative years—but he now feels it necessary to give up. I have not pressed him for his reason for giving up, whether, for example, he wishes to give way to a younger man, or to spend more time with his wife and children, but I am sure that he has a good reason for giving up a job after three years when it may have been better for him and for us if he had stayed for another year or two. We are grateful to him for the work that he has done. He has provided the committee with a few more stepping stones in the development of its future work. I am glad that the noble Lord will contribute to the debate.

I must say a few words about the committee's composition. It consists of 19 members plus a chairman, and the Act provides that in selecting people to serve on the committee, which has the duty of advising the Home Secretary on matters concerned with the Act and his functions under it, the committee shall reflect a broad range of expertise from across the scientific community as well as those whose main concern is for animal welfare. I am not sure what inference is to be drawn from the use of the words in that order: whether the scientific world can be represented by anyone, because those whose principal purpose is to safeguard the welfare of animals will be in a majority. However, there are only two, or possibly three, out of the 19 members who can be said to have as their principal interest the welfare of animals. That is too small a proportion of the whole. When the opportunity arises to make any fresh appointments, the Government might consider adding one or two more people whose avowed purpose in life is to try to protect animals from distress and suffering.

The committee is not an auditor; it is not a supervisor; it is not there to sit in judgment; it is a regulatory body. It has powers of regulation under the Act itself. In the course of that it is desirable, however expert and concerned many professional scientists may be, to have the voice of the public (the interests of the people at large) represented on the committee. I hope that notice will be taken of that point.

Before I finish I shall refer to what I believe to be a few important respects in which the advisory committee's work could be broadened. The committee's structure is sound. Its terms of reference are good. The work that it is doing is excellent. The question is: what should it do next? If we look at the problems worrying the committee, which are referred to in the report, we shall find matters that we have had before us previously. I am sorry to say that we are likely to have them before us again. The first is the grievous problem of toxicity testing (substance testing) which uses up hundreds of thousands of animals. The infamous LD50 test is part of that. As your Lordships may remember, that means stuffing animals with substances until one can see what it takes to kill them. In that area there is more animal misery to the square mile than in any other section of the animal kingdom. They are all having to chew alien substances to see what their bellies will stand before they die. There should be some more humane and scientific way of getting the answer to toxicity.

Cosmetics is another question which has occupied a good deal of time; but we have an answer from Europe now. If we wait until 1998 or 1999, we may get a ban on the use of animals to test cosmetics. The definition of "cosmetics" under the EC is wider than purely beauty preparations. We think of cosmetics as if they were all lipsticks, eye shades and pink cheeks. There is more to cosmetics than that. However, I remind your Lordships that in the other place there is more interest in animal welfare than ever I remember before in the 40 years that I have known it. There are 44 Early Day Motions down on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at the present time dealing with the welfare of animals. By far the biggest support is behind the cruelty of whaling, but there are two on the use of animals for toxicity testing which have attracted more than 100 signatures each.

The next worry referred to in the report is primates. Here we have to generate a feeling of guilt among the human species at the way it is going for its nearest likeness for greater use in experiments to deal with conditions of the human species, many of which are due to the follies of man. I am glad to say that the procedures committee was recently asked to receive a deputation from the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, a body that has been in existence for a number of years but which has taken on a new lease of life under a new chairman, Mr. Roger Gale, Member of Parliament. The group went to see the procedures committee. It was the first time that the animal welfare group had been to see one of the statutory committees. What it asked the committee to recommend to the Government was that the use of wild-caught primates should be banned with immediate effect and that within a period of five years only purpose-bred primates from Britain and other European Community states should be used for scientific procedures. What is going on throughout the forests of Indonesia and elsewhere is disgusting. Large companies are at work employing thousands of people to raid the forests and bring back primates and other types of animals for animal experiments. The committee has those issues on its hands.

The next thing the committee will have to give attention to is replacement. Chapter 4 of the report on replacement, reduction and refinement is probably the most important in the book. The Fund for the Removal of Animal Experiments and other bodies are doing their best to assist in this area. The grant given by the Government to the procedures committee for use in research to get rid of research is woefully inadequate. But I am sure that the committee will press on.

In conclusion, I want noble Lords to refer to the "Forward Look" at the end of the Animal Procedures Committee's report. Five years is not a long time, but it is a quinquennial period and a little stock taking does not come amiss. My complaint against the report rests more in its outlook and attitude towards the future in the chapter headed "Forward Look" than anything else. Here I think that the committee should become bolder in its task. It should become exploratory as well as regulatory, and it should get to know more of what people are doing in the laboratories and the purpose for which they are doing it.

I should like to see a bolder approach to that forward look. I know that Whitehall language tends to be full of bromide and grace but there are times when it can thrust forward. I believe that for this committee the time has already come for that. We want a tighter regime of control. The 1986 Act banned nothing but controlled everything. We want to see everything controlled.

The committee must give more attention to numbers. I know that numbers are not a true indication of the extent of the use or value of animals in laboratories, but it is the only test which the public can apply. How else are they to know? It must be taken on trust. We must take the Animal Procedures Committee on trust; to a large extent, that committee must take on trust the Home Office which authorises the work to be done. The Animal Procedures Committee does not do that.

The biggest martyr in the whole world of laboratory animals is the mouse. The mouse, the rat, the rabbit and other rodents account for over one-third of the total number of animals used in laboratories at present. I know that we do not think they are very important, but they have a capacity to suffer like everyone else. Therefore, the procedures committee should have regard to public attitudes.

It is about time that we set a few targets as the European Community tends to do. We should stake out the future in a more positive form so that we know what we are working towards. Also, the procedures committee should examine more closely the cases in which the pain to be suffered by the animals is severe or extremely severe. I should like to know why animals still suffer pain in the laboratories, quite apart from the toxic testing grounds. Animals suffer pain there because they are stuffed full of toxic substances; and if enough of those substances are stuffed into them, the animals die. However, I am thinking of the more fundamental research.

I should like to see the committee attempt a valued judgment of various areas of work that is done under licence from the Home Office. I should like the committee to examine rather more closely the project licences granted so that it can gain an idea of what the Home Office is doing. We are largely in the hands of the inspectorate which is the vetting body for such applications. Only extreme cases are put before the procedures committee.

I wish the procedures committee every success in its work. As I say, it needs a bolder approach and firmer hands on the controls which exist. It should have a critical approach as to how the Home Office is exercising its responsibilities. However, the committee has stood the test of the first five years. The structure is right and the controls exist. The Home Secretary has powers which he never had before to evaluate what is being done. Taking all those matters together, the future should offer conditions of progress. We can be the leader of Europe without putting our hands on the European progress machine every time it moves. We are always asking to be left out of things; for example, we want to put on a brake as regards cosmetics. However, we should be leading Europe and this committee gives us an opportunity to do so.

9.25 p.m.

Lord Nathan

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having introduced this debate about the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991. I must also say how very grateful I am for the kind remarks he made about me and indeed about the work of the committee. I intervene in the debate because I had the honour to serve as chairman not only throughout the period covered by the report now being debated but also during the period of its successor for 1992, which will, I hope, appear during the summer.

Today is my first day as "past chairman" after serving for some three years, and this itself is therefore something of a new experience! Service as chairman has been a pleasure and a privilege. There are around 20 members, each of whom contributes from widely different experiences and backgrounds. However, they are united in commitment to the main purpose of the 1986 Act; namely, to seek a balance between the requirements of animal welfare and medical science. A number of the members contributed to the evolution of the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did to such remarkable effect.

The committee is an advisory committee and we have no disciplinary powers. That is a matter for the Home Office and in particular for its excellent inspectors. This debate provides me with the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the committee for their forbearance on matters which are of passionate concern. Indeed, despite strong differences of view vigorously expressed—as they should be—there has never been any personal attack. During my term there has never needed to be a vote except on one matter; that is, on what advice should be given to the Secretary of State, at his request, on whether or not cephalopods should be brought within the scope of the Act. There was a full, vigorous and reasoned debate, the essence of which is recorded in a letter I wrote, with the approval of the committee, to the Secretary of State, a copy of which is in the Library. That copy may be of interest to some noble Lords.

It might be thought that a debate in the spring of 1993 on an annual report for 1991 involves discussing subjects which have become stale or have been overtaken by events. In this case I believe there is merit in the debate, even though deferred, because the report looks forward to much that features centrally in the committee's work in 1992, and indeed in this current year.

In 1991 the committee commenced work on the issue of cephalopods—octopus, squid and nautilus —as a result of a request from the Secretary of State for our advice as to whether they should be brought within the scope of the Act. The matter having been referred to us, we felt it appropriate to carry out the study in the full committee, rather than by a sub-committee. Although there are members who have some knowledge of the subject—which had been discussed, by, among others, some members of the present committee when the Bill was under consideration—we decided to seek evidence from experts in the field.

The subject, as I learnt, is complicated, involving as it does questions relating to the nature of pain, distress and suffering in creatures so different from ourselves and the vertebrates with which we are more accustomed to deal, to which alone the Act originally applied. A majority of the committee favoured bringing Octopus vulgaris (but not other cephalopods) within the scope of the Act, and Government have accepted and implemented that advice.

This exercise represents one facet of the committee's work, providing advice requested by government involving sifting relevant material and assessing it and expert opinion, and exercising our own judgment as best we may on what advice to give on changing the law.

Quite a different matter which we mentioned in the 1991 report and which has, as it still does, absorbed our attention relates to primates. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has already referred to that. Questions relating to primates and their use in medical research are of great and immediate public concern and lie close to the reason for the existence of the Act and indeed its predecessors. It was clear to us in 1991 that a full scale study should be undertaken by the committee.

It is a large and complex subject. We therefore established a sub-committee to undertake the main burden and to report to the full committee with its findings. Setting the agenda for the study has itself been a major task. It will certainly include looking at the breeding and sourcing of primates for research, the nature of the research for which primates remain essential, which primates are appropriate and what the way forward should be in terms of primate use and care in this country.

We were delighted to have the visit of Mr. Roger Gale and one of his colleagues. We learnt much from them. My successors in the committee will take into account the very interesting and important points which they raised. The committee did not express a view when that meeting took place because these are obviously matters which require careful consideration.

Into that somewhat academic study allegations of gross abuse of primates in supplying and research establishments were injected. Like so many others we saw the television film. We were also made aware of the written and video material supplied to the Home Office. We were closely concerned in the investigation mounted by the inspectorate and our views were reported to the Home Secretary alongside the inspectorate's findings. The firm and speedy action of the Home Secretary seemed to us a good example of how the system should work.

Toxicity testing has been a continuing concern. It was in our 1990 report that we announced that we would be undertaking a special study, for which a further special sub-committee has been formed. Progress has been made but, again, it is a subject of great complexity. I hope that the sub-committee will soon be ready to report to the main committee.

In the scientific context there are certain tests to assure safety which necessarily involve the use of animals. The United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry sells throughout the world. The tests it carries out must satisfy the requirements of the countries to which it sells. Some require the use of a greater number of animals and procedures of greater severity than ours. OECD plays a role in setting standards. Therefore there is a task for the Government in influencing other countries and the OECD to adopt our standards in preference to those which are more severe. Some success has been achieved. For instance, we have been concerned to substitute for the lethal dose test —to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred as the LD50 test—the fixed dose procedure. That has been included in the OECD guidelines for 1992 but, to our regret, only as an option rather than as the preferred alternative. I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to gain acceptance of that less harsh test.

A further reason for the continuance of severe toxicity testing is fear of liability with increasing adoption of strict liability (liability without fault). That is a problem which will have to be addressed.

The research sub-committee is a standing sub-committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley. Its purpose is to promote research into ways of refining, replacing and reducing animal experimentation, in which the main committee is of course closely concerned.

I have already referred to our long-standing desire to see the lethal dose test replaced by the fixed dose procedure. Likewise, we have been concerned to see the Draize irritancy eye test replaced by an alternative. It is cheering to note the Government's initiative in conjunction with the European Commission in that context. The committee was present at its launch.

In selecting projects, the sub-committee gives preference to projects likely to result in early and substantial reduction in animal usage and to reducing severity of procedures rather than supporting basic research. Grants for studies to replace laboratory animals by in vitro tests for vaccines are an example. In the veterinary field the development of a tissue culture system in relation to TSE with a view to replacing inoculation of animals has been funded. It will, however, take several years for the answer to be forthcoming. Since 1988–89, when the programme started, nine projects have been completed, with substantial benefits in reducing, refining and replacing animal procedures and improving the welfare of laboratory animals.

Research and research financing cannot be managed on an annual basis since a project will most commonly be on a three years or more basis. The projects established by the sub-committee, which are central to the purposes of the committee, inevitably rely on continuity of funding. I hope that the Minister may be able to confirm that current funding will be maintained or indeed improved and that he will bear in mind that the funding derives from the licence fees paid under the Act. It is therefore a self-financing arrangement.

For the future, I believe that one of the key interests of the committee will continue to be education. Education and training of those engaged in operations coming within the scope of the Act are now firmly on the Home Office agenda. It is essential that those so engaged know not only the regulations but how to handle animals and to care for them. It was that lack of knowledge, as well as other factors, which became so evident in the scandal at the primate establishments to which I have referred.

However, I believe that there is a further element of education which requires action; that is in schools. It appears to be a common view among students, children and their teachers that animal experimentation in connection with medical science is unnecessary. I wish that that were so. There appears to be little general understanding of the need for animal experimentation not only for toxicity testing, to which I have referred, but also in the context of new medical treatments, for instance for AIDS, Alzheimer's disease and for finding cures, perhaps by some form of genetic engineering, for diseases which hitherto have been found to be incurable, of which muscular dystrophy may be a good example. Any step which Government can take to influence the introduction into education of some knowledge and understanding of these matters would be of great value.

What I have said will indicate that the committee is proactive in taking initiatives to find solutions to some of our most difficult and intractable problems. As a result, instead of meeting about six times a year, as it did three years ago, it met 10 times last year. Visits ensure that the committee does not become remote from what those engaged in research are doing and the problems with which they are confronted. Last year we went to a research establishment in Edinburgh; it was extremely enlightening. Such visits also have the benefit of enabling those engaged in research to meet the committee so that the members of the committee do not remain to them like white rabbits—invisible creatures in a distant world.

The visits are in addition to meetings of the new sub-committees to which I have referred. There is a great burden on the members and I wish to express my appreciation of their constant support. I fear that the pressures may increase further in the coming years and I take this opportunity of wishing them and my successor chairman—whoever he may be—well.

9.38 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, even at this late hour, with a much more thinly represented House than the debate deserves, tribute should be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for once again raising this important Question. It is a subject which he has raised previously. We should pay tribute too to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee members for the excellent report which they have produced. It is both lucid and brief, unlike many reports which have to be considered by Parliament.

I speak as one who is not of the scientific world but who has a great interest in medicine having visited a number of pharmaceutical companies and having seen a certain amount of animal testing.

The penultimate point of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with regard to schools is of the utmost importance. Those who oppose animal testing have been active in schools. I make no complaint about that because there are clearly two sides to this important and emotive issue. But many of our sixth formers will go into the medical profession and will have to deal with such dreadful diseases as Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis and others. The need for animal testing, albeit with reluctance, is still paramount there.

I wonder what facilities are given for schools to visit laboratories. Obviously, children who go there must be carefully selected; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, mentioned just now, those who will carry out experiments in years to come are the children at present in school.

I wish to say a few words about cosmetics because it is one of the most important issues. There are a number of nasty skin diseases such as psoriasis, impetigo and scabies, where medical products are needed and animal testing may well be necessary.

However, some of the beauty preparations constitute a different issue. One large chain of chemists —whose name I shall not mention in the interests of advertising, but most noble Lords will know which it is—specifically states on its containers that animals are not used for testing products. I feel sure that with some products other organisations could follow suit. One of the great issues is shampoos which are necessary but they seem to me to be a borderline case. It will be interesting to see what difference the European Community directives post-1991 will make.

Noble Lords will be much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for initiating the debate. This is an on-going matter and we hope that next time the debate occurs there will be a fuller House on a subject which remains of the utmost importance.

9.42 p.m.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who asks Her Majesty's Government for their response to the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991. This seems likely to become an annual event, and an important one, where we have the chance of examining the working of the system which was set up in 1986. That system owed a great deal to your Lordships' House and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who anticipated the 1986 Act with two Private Members' Bills, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself.

I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate to the occasion and the hour, to rehearse differences between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the use of animals in experimental procedures. Rather, I wish to emphasise our agreement on the need for effective oversight and control.

I congratulate the Home Office and the Animal Procedures Committee. The report seems to me to be evidence that the initial transition period for the new arrangements has gone extremely well and that those arrangements are now well established and accepted. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply. I hope he will lay some stress on the importance to the country—indeed to humankind in general—of continued though controlled, use of animals for the purposes which are specified in the 1986 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already mentioned the position in schools and the value of an awareness of the importance of those purposes. To that end, I commend the recent report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on these topics as a balanced and dispassionate account of those purposes.

I believe it both useful and important that the report deals openly with some of the transgressions that have taken place. No doubt we shall have to face the "iceberg" argument and we should not put too much weight on the number of transgressions, however low it would seem to be. But publication of the kind of breaches of the law and their consequences not only alerts the inspectorate and institutions to deficiencies in practice and deficiencies of the system itself; I believe it also strengthens the vitally important climate of opinion among the scientific community. In general, scientists dislike causing suffering and an unwillingness to inflict cruelty is to my mind as important as the precise form of departmental control. The disapproval of colleagues is a powerful influence. Losing one's licence, which is now a very clear consequence of transgression, brands the loser as callous or incompetent, or both.

The success of the inspectorate is due to its very considerable knowledge and equally considerable integrity. I believe that it is enhanced because the scientific community understands its responsibilities and point of view. The inspectors are working with the grain, not against it. I hope that the Minister's reply will dwell for a moment on some of the wider issues that are understandably not stressed in the report, which deals with the much more detailed work of the committee.

Finally, I should like to say how grateful we all are to the committee for an extremely important and demanding task admirably carried out. Perhaps I may express, as I believe we all have done, our special gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whose term as chairman has just ended.

9.48 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, notwithstanding that his name appears on the list of speakers, I fear I am a late substitute for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I apologise for his absence and for any disappointment to the House at finding me in his place.

I find it difficult if not impossible to pay adequate tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The legislation for which he has in great measure been personally responsible in so many different fields of animal welfare is perhaps a greater tribute to him than any words of mine could be. In his work in this House over many years he has been indefatigable in his efforts to bring to our attention many of the shameful aspects which have blighted our record of the treatment of animals in this and other spheres. His success in so doing has resulted in significant improvements in many different areas of concern. His work on behalf of animals and his courage in carrying it out has been and continues to be an example to us all.

Tonight the noble Lord has given this House an opportunity to consider the report of the Animal Procedures Committee. I hope to hear from Her Majesty's Government their proposals in response to a number of its more important recommendations and also its criticisms. The chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, as other noble Lords have said, deserves not only our gratitude for the clearly very considerable work of his committee but also our congratulations on producing a report which I, as a non-scientist, am glad to feel I can readily understand.

My qualifications for speaking in the debate are limited. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and other noble Lords spoke of the need for education in schools. As a schoolgirl of 15 long ago, in the days before the term "animal rights" or the Animal Liberation Front became commonplace, I proposed and carried a motion during a school debate to ban vivisection —as I remember to the annoyance of the biology teacher who argued on the other side. The anxieties which I and my fellow schoolgirls expressed then are shared by an even wider public now, fuelled by increased public awareness over the years since then about the nature of animal experimentation and also a distaste for animal research, some of which was and still appears to be seen as causing unnecessary suffering often only in order to feed human vanity.

As my noble friend Lord Houghton above all has reason to know, the 1986 Act was in part a reaction to that widespread public concern, providing as it did stricter controls on scientific work on living animals, including the provision of licensing for individuals and for individual projects; including the stringent safeguards on pain and suffering and the other detailed requirements which were designed to meet a growing public anxiety about the care and welfare of the animals that were involved.

Public anxiety has not gone away. Although there is a general acceptance today that some experimental and other scientific procedures involving living animals are necessary for the benefit of man and of animals too, the public still need reassurance that such experiments are essential; that they are kept to a minimum; that where possible alternative procedures are being sought and found; that suffering is kept to a minimum; and that the stringent safeguards for which that Act provided are being applied. For all its optimism, the committee's report highlights a number of matters of real concern, which I ask the Minister to address when he replies to the debate.

The committee reported that on 31st December 1991 there were 19 inspectors who had either medical or veterinary qualifications and who were available to give advice and assistance to licence holders. They had the power to require the destruction of an animal which, in their view, was suffering excessively. I shall be grateful if the Minister can tell us what the number of inspectors is today and whether he considers the present number to be adequate in view of the committee's opinion expressed in the report that just over five years after the operation of the Act, there appears to be at times, A singular lack of understanding of the importance of the controls". Clearly—the report is frank about it—there have been a number of infringements. The report details 13 in 1991. The most serious appear to have resulted in revocation of personal and project licences but there was no prosecution, despite avoidable animal suffering having been caused in each case. Will the Minister confirm that infringements are continuing to be met not simply with tough administrative action, but also with referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions where that is considered appropriate?

Perhaps the Minister can also say whether Her Majesty's Government are confident, in so far as it is possible to be so, that all serious infringements are coming to light and that the inspectorate is adequately staffed in order to pick them up. Perhaps he can reassure the House that in his view adequate steps are being taken to deal with those infringements as they become known.

We on these Benches share the concern of the committee that the budget for funding research into ways of reducing or replacing living animal experiments should be properly safeguarded. The research budget, as I understand the situation from the report of the committee, has in the past been subject to arbitrary cuts, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, stated, it does not represent any additional burden on overall government expenditure because it is covered by license fees under the Act. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the research sub-committee's funding is secure for the three years ahead for which planning has to take place?

The public surely require the Government to use their best endeavours to find alternatives to live animal experimentation where possible. If the Government cannot or will not guarantee the funding for that essential research, we must be entitled to ask why not.

It is not only the provision of finance to seek alternative procedures that concerns us. Two existing procedures have attracted public attention and public horror over the years, and they continue to do so. The Draize eye test is still in use, although it is not used extensively. Can the Minister tell us what progress was made at the London conference, which the committee noted was to be held in October 1992 with the aim of reaching EC-wide agreement on alternative methods which would be acceptable within and outside Europe, towards phasing that test out?

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has graphically described the LD50 test and the LC50 test in relation to toxic substances, which normally involve the feeding of toxic matter into the stomach of an animal to the point of death, which is the end of the test. That test continues to cause great anxiety, notwithstanding its reduced use, because severe suffering to the animal is likely to result. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has pointed out that the fixed dose procedure, which does not require the animal to suffer to death and is a viable alternative in most cases to the LD50 test, is not the preferred alternative under the 1992 OECD guidelines. What steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to ensure that in future, in particular in relation to the United Nations transport regulations, the LD50 tests are phased out with more humane alternatives taking their place?

We welcome the steps that are being taken to reduce the animal testing of cosmetics. Such testing, in so far as it continues, is seen by the public as inessential and inhumane. I should like to ask the Minister what further steps are proposed to achieve a further reduction and hopefully a rapid elimination of those tests in the United Kingdom and Europe, and in advance of 1998.

We welcome the attempts by the Government to encourage member states to implement the EC directive on the protection of animals used for experimental and scientific purposes. It is a matter of pride that this country is at the forefront of those changes. The British public has a right to be satisfied that such experiments, which are carried out in its name and, ostensibly at any rate, for its benefit, are essential and carried out with the minimum of suffering, in accordance with the strict rules and conditions that were laid down in the Act.

It is easy to lose sight of the ultimate aim, even reading through the committee's report, which must be the elimination of pain from the laboratory in relation to laboratory animals. Despite the progress that has clearly been made over the past three years, over the period of the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, of the committee and over the five years or more that have elapsed since the passing of the Act, it is clear that a great deal more has still to be done before any of us, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have reason to be satisfied with the working of the legislation.

10 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not only for the characteristically eloquent way in which he introduced this evening's debate but for the opportunity that he has given us to consider the important subject of animal experimentation and the key role within the United Kingdom system of control played by the Animal Procedures Committee.

This debate is principally about the Animal Procedures Committee and I want to begin by paying tribute to the work of that body. The committee performs a vital function in the system of control over animal experimentation in this country.

We are particularly fortunate in having heard this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who, though recently retired from chairmanship of the committee, was able to inform your Lordships on what the committee had achieved and how and where it will be making its principal contribution in the immediate future. The noble Lord's message was that the committee is working harder than ever and is pressing ahead on a number of important topics. This is a tribute to the wise leadership which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has provided during the past three years.

As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, it is also a tribute to the whole committee. I want to thank all its members for the unstinting public service that they provide in this important area of national life. I know that there are some people who allege that the committee is over sympathetic to research interests and that animal welfare considerations are inadequately represented. But that is simply not the case. Nothing that I hear about the committee leads me to suppose that any one interest predominates. It is a microcosm of views within society at large and in that lies its strength. We have an elaborate and effective system in place for regulating research and for considering the justification for each piece of proposed work.

It is important to put clearly on the record the nature of the controls which exist and why the Government believe it right to have created an environment in which properly justified research can take place. Of course, things may sometimes go wrong; no system is perfect and the trust upon which our arrangements are founded may sometimes be abused. The question is whether the Home Office and its inspectors are capable of an urgent response to put matters right. The Government believe that the principles underlying the legislation are sound and working effectively.

I want to deal now with the particular points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and others, in regard to the operation of the 1986 Act. I welcome the noble Lord's support for the Act and I am particularly grateful to him for giving me prior indication of the points that he would be raising. Some of those points have a particular relevance to current concerns of the Animal Procedures Committee. That is certainly so in respect of the use of primates in research where we welcome the fact that the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging study of this difficult issue.

I recognise the particular sensitivity that is felt about using wild-caught primates in research. The Government certainly share the wish of those who want to see an end to the use of wild-caught primates, and the most recent signs are that we are getting close to that position. A recent survey of holdings of larger primates in the UK has shown that more than 80 per cent. of animals have been captive-bred somewhere in the world. I believe that the Home Office can claim a good deal of the credit for that result.

We are considering setting an early target date beyond which use of wild-caught primates would no longer be permitted unless a sound scientific case had been made out for doing so. I know that that will not quite satisfy some noble Lords who want an immediate ban on all use of wild-caught primates. However, I fear that we could not do that without possibly endangering important areas of research. We are very near the point where any routine use of wild-caught primates will have become a thing of the past and where such use at all is wholly exceptional.

There are also those who would like us to go further still, and restrict primate use to animals bred in this country, or indeed elsewhere in the European Community. Obviously, the shorter the distance animals have to be transported, the better. It is also better that breeding takes place in United Kingdom or European establishments in which we can have confidence. We have already made some progress with breeding programmes in this country. Although the number of primates bred in the United Kingdom remains small, a number of research establishments have become self-sufficient through in-house breeding programmes. In the case of marmosets, we are near self-sufficiency. In respect of other primate species, we are still a significant way short of that position.

Developments elsewhere in the European Community are crucial, and this is an issue which we have raised with our Community counterparts. I understand that the situation in other member states is mixed so far as progress towards the use of captive-bred primates and the development of domestic breeding programmes is concerned. One of the problems of the European breeding programmes is that of anticipating future demand, since it would be sad if well-intentioned efforts in this area led to the breeding of surplus animals which then had to be destroyed.

There is also the issue of animals bred outside the Community, but supplied through another Community country. For all these reasons, I do not think we can yet agree the sort of precise target which has been suggested. But I hope that what I have said will convince your Lordships that we take very seriously indeed, and are actively engaged domestically and with our European partners, in seeking progress on this important subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised the further, sensitive issue of regulatory toxicity testing. The Government are very pleased that the Animal Procedures Committee is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has mentioned, undertaking a special study of this important topic. The Government have long shared public concern about the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50 per cent.) test in particular. There is, though, some cause for satisfaction on the subject. Progress has been achieved on the development and acceptance of the fixed dose procedure as an alternative to the LD50 test in some areas of testing. This resulted from a research study co-ordinated in the United Kingdom. This is a very positive development but it is by no means the end of the matter. It remains to be seen whether individual regulatory authorities in other countries will, in practice, be willing to accept data derived from the fixed dose procedure.

It is encouraging that that procedure has recently been accepted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as an alternative to the LD50 test, although I understand the noble Lord's regret that the procedure is regarded as only an alternative rather than the preferred method. Obviously, there is only so much persuasion that any one country can bring to bear on independent regulatory agencies. But we do strongly encourage the use of the fixed dose procedure, and we hope to see a significant decrease in LD50 testing in the coming years.

I understand your Lordships' and the public's concern to reduce the number of animals used in research. I understand also why there has been concern at the small rise of 1 per cent. in the total number of experiments conducted in 1991, the last year for which figures are currently available. I believe, though, that that latter figure has to be set in the context of the significant decline that has gone on over a long period. The rise last year was brought about partly by the clarification of the rules on the re-use of animals and partly by the development of new techniques. But even within the latest figures there were some encouraging developments, particularly the fall in the use of primates and in the number of animals used in safety testing cosmetics.

The Animal Procedures Committee makes a significant contribution to the search for alternatives to animal use. The committee's research subcommittee plays a key role by administering the Home Office's own research budget. Since the research scheme began in 1988 the Home Office has funded some 16 projects, ranging from the refinement or reduction of lethal toxicity and potency tests to the reduction of animal usage in vaccine production and improvement of husbandry techniques.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked me for an assurance that the budget will be maintained and expanded in future years. She will, I think, understand that I am constrained from making any commitment in regard to future spending levels. I can assure your Lordships, however, that it is the Government's wish, within the overall constraints of public expenditure, to enable the research sub-committee to develop its work as much as possible.

There has been concern about evidence of infringements of the Act and the implied lack of effective follow-up action. The Government understand the Animal Procedures Committee's concern that after more than five years of the operation of the Act there is still misunderstanding about the need for and significance of the controls that it introduced. A strict adherence to those controls is the constant message of the inspectorate. There are 21 inspectors and we are satisfied that its present strength is adequate. The new training arrangements currently being introduced by the Home Office will reiterate the significance of the controls. But there should be no misunderstanding that when infringements do come to light effective and appropriate action is always taken.

I understand the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, at the rarity of prosecutions so far under the Act. I know that the Animal Procedures Committee was itself concerned that no prosecution has resulted from the specific case noted in its annual report. Obviously the Home Office has no influence over prosecution decisions, but once it was clear that no prosecution would be instituted in that case, the Home Office took action against the two licence holders. One of those accepted the Secretary of State's decision to revoke his licence. The other exercised his right to make representations. A legally qualified assessor has been appointed to hear those representations, and the proceedings are due to take place in the near future.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Auckland referred to the equally sensitive question of cosmetic testing on animals. A number of points need to be made. First, when talking of "cosmetics" we are covering not just beauty products but toiletries, barrier creams and even heavy duty industrial cleansers. Secondly, as the Animal Procedures Committee notes in its annual report, there has been a reduction of 79 per cent. in the number of procedures carried out for the purpose of cosmetics safety testing over the past five years. Between 1987 and 1991, the number of such tests conducted on animals fell from over 14,000 to a little over 3,000. Nevertheless, there remains a need for some safety testing on animals—not just in regard to the safety of consumers but also for those who may be involved with the substances in manufacture or transport.

Internationally progress has continued to be encouraging. In line with the opinion of the European Parliament of 10th June 1992, my noble friend Lady Denton persuaded our European partners at the Consumer Affairs Council on 3rd November to agree unanimously to ban cosmetics testing on animals by 1st January 1998, subject to the availability of suitably validated alternatives by that time. This was a significant achievement of the UK presidency. It will certainly remain United Kingdom policy to achieve the 1998 target date and to that end to encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing.

The noble Baroness asked me about the London conference. It agreed upon a programme of research to validate alternatives to the eye test. That process will take some time, but we look forward to the results and to it achieving its desired effect with the other international regulatory authorities.

As always on this subject, we have had an interesting debate and I hope that I have been able to answer the points that your Lordships have raised. In the course of our debate we have touched on the many issues which generate public concern about the use of animals in research—toxicity testing, primates, infringements, cosmetics testing and education. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Auckland that it is important that all sides of the argument are raised in schools so that school children can understand and make up their minds about the very complicated issues that are involved.

I believe that the committee has its finger very much on the pulse of public concern. It is bringing its expert attention to bear on key issues.

The Government believe that we have in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 an effective instrument for regulating animal research and for ensuring that only well-justified work takes place, by suitably qualified people and in the right surroundings. It is a good Act, but that does not mean that it does not require constant monitoring and scrutiny. That is where the Animal Procedures Committee plays a crucial role.

With other noble Lords, I pay tribute again to the committee and the work which it performs. I look forward to its on-going role in ensuring that the legislation works as effectively as possible.

House adjourned at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock.