HC Deb 22 February 2000 vol 344 cc876-8W
Mr. Baker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who applied for licences PPL 170 04972 and PPL 170 04956 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [110987]

(2) in respect of Paragraph 5.13 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999, for what reasons animals suffering from convulsions are treated as not requiring intervention; [111048]

(3) if he will make a statement on the use of animals in procedures aimed at identifying people who could be targeted for smoking cessation programmes; [110989]

(4) for what reason it was concluded that animal experimentation is justified under licences PPL 70/04972 and PPL 70/04956; [111015]

(5) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 258W, if he will make a statement on paragraph 5:11 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999; [111083]

(6) in respect of paragraph 5:7 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999, what information beyond that gained over the past 30 years is expected to be realised by licences PPL 70/04972 and PPL 70/04956; [111013]

(7) what weight he gave to the views of members of the Animal Procedures Committee opposed to the granting of applications PPL 170 04972 and PPL 170 04956 before deciding to authorise these. [110988]

Mr. Mike O'Brien

[holding answer 21 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W.

Project licences are only issued for legitimate purposes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 after the likely benefits (to man, animals or the environment) have been weighed against the costs to the animals involved. Any alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the experimental design to minimise suffering must be employed. In the cases of these two project licences, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee have both advised that the use of animals can be fully justified.

The Animal Procedures Committee gave careful consideration to these applications, most recently on 13 October. The views of all members as well as its overall advice was taken into account in reaching my conclusion.

The minutes of this meeting show at paragraph 5:7 that the issue of smoking research during the last 30 years was raised. The Government have a firm policy of not granting applications to research tobacco products. Such research is an entirely different matter from research into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The benefits of the information gained through the use of newly available molecular biology will be a better understanding of the resulting condition, the ability to identify those most at risk of developing these conditions, and the development of new and improved treatments. The identification of people for possible smoking cessation programmes was given as only one possible example of the likely benefits of the work. It did not feature as a major reason for approving either of the applications and is considered to be nothing more than an incidental benefit which, if it were to be considered in isolation, would not have justified the issue of licenses.

Paragraphs 5:11 and 5:13 of the minutes discuss some aspects of the applications. My previous statement that the animals are not expected to suffer convulsive spasms is correct. Reference to "convulsions" was made as this adverse effect is routinely included on the standard scoring system for assessing distress levels at the establishment where the work is to be performed. Such adverse effects seldom occur in isolation from other signs of distress and I am assured that they are not expected to occur at all in the context of these projects. The reference to scoring "normal" is, therefore, misleading. The Committee minutes make reference to the administration of spasmogens which are substances that may induce bronchospasm (wheezing). I am told that these will not cause convulsions or seizures mediated through the central nervous system and the reference to "convulsions" was subsequently removed from the application.

Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits me from naming the applicants.