§ Mr. DalyellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress in the co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Home Office, and the Department of Trade and Industry of a joint Government/industry message on the necessity for, and benefits of, animal testing. [134426]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThe Government fully accept that the progress of scientific research; the development of new medical and veterinary drugs and technologies; and consumer and environmental safety continue to depend on the use of animals. Nevertheless, we are committed to ensuring that animals are used only where fully justified and where there are no alternatives. We will continue to work with the scientific community, industry and responsible animal welfare organisations to achieve this and to ensure that the costs and benefits of the use of animals in scientific research are fully explained.
The Home Office maintains a series of formal relationships with several sectors and interest groups as well as other Government Departments. We liaise with users and their professional bodies; with regulators in United Kingdom Government; and with industry (centering on the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry).
Officials also liaise with grant awarding bodies such as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust who are significant public sector research funding bodies and have established a set of principles which reflect the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
We work with the Regulatory Toxicology Group, including Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, DETR, Heath & Safety Executive and the DTI, which has led to the production of the new Regulatory Toxicology Guidance which is due to be published soon.
As a result of our setting up a data sharing working group, we have gained the endorsement of Government Departments of the principle of data sharing and agreement that United Kingdom regulatory agencies should encourage industry to extend the scope for sharing animal test data in the field of regulatory safety testing. An inter-Departmental concordat has therefore been developed as a first step in this process and should enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals.
§ Mr. FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reduce(a) the number of experiments conducted on animals and (b) the number of animals used in experiments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [134277]
(2) what plans he has to reduce the numbers of primates used in scientific procedures; and if he will make a statement; [134270]
215W(3) how much has been spent by his Department on work to find alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures in each of the last five years; what is the projected expenditure for each of the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [134269]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienNon-human primates are used in regulatory testing to help ensure the safety of medicines and are also used for other important areas of fundamental research aimed primarily at better understanding the causes of disease in humans and developing potential new treatments. They contribute, for example, to programmes of work relating to Parkinson's disease, visual impairment, stroke, diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine development. The 1986 Act requires that non-human primates are only used in scientific procedures if no other species is suitable.
In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act requires that the likely benefits of the programme be weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.
The 1986 Act does not make provision for controlling the overall number of procedures. While we can ensure that the number of animals used in each programme of work is minimised, we cannot dictate how many applications for new project licences will be submitted, nor how many will satisfy the requirements of the cost/benefit assessment.
The effectiveness of the Act cannot be judged by the overall number of procedures as the primary purpose of the Act is to reduce suffering.
In addition to the rigorous application of the 3Rs we have gained the endorsement of Government Departments of the principle of data sharing and agreement that United Kingdom regulatory agencies should encourage industry to extend the scope for sharing animal test data in the field of regulatory safety testing. An inter-Departmental concordat has therefore been developed as a first step in this process and should enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals.
The use of alternatives is already widely encouraged. Indeed, the use of animals in procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid alternative is available. Each year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. In each of the last five years, these budgets have totalled:
216W
Year £000 1995–96 253 1996–97 242 1997–98 182 1998–99 259 1999–2000 259 The budget for 2000–01 is £265,000. The budget for 2001–02 has not yet been set.