HC Deb 13 June 1990 vol 174 cc193-5W
Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to review the effectiveness of the current provisions to prevent undue pain and suffering in experimentation on live animals.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in theOfficial Report the annual number of lethal dose toxicity tests permitted over the last five years for which figures are available.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

Lethal dose toxicity tests have been separately identified in the statistics since 1987. The numbers of such tests carried out in 1987 and 1988 are published in table 14—columns 8 and 9—of the annual "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain" for 1987 and 1988, Cm. 515 and 743. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has made to the pharmaceutical and other commercial companies undertaking tests on live animals to move towards alternative methods of testing;

(2) what further steps he proposes to encourage provision for alternative methods for use in basic research in toxicity testing and drug development to replace experimentation on live animals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

It is a fundamental principal of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that animals are used in scientific procedures, for whatever purposes, only where there are no alternatives to their use. All applicants for a project licence issued under the Act must satisfy the Home Office that they have given thorough consideration to the scope for using alternative methods not involving animals.

While the use of animals for research and safety testing will remain necessary for the foreseeable future, those involved in animal procedures are well aware of the need to move towards non-animal techniques whenever possible. Work involving living animals is not permitted where alternatives exist.

Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in theOfficial Report those organisations which have received grants from Her Majesty's Government for research into replacement alternatives to experimentation on live animals indicating the amount of the grant in each case.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

In 1984 financial assistance was provided to two organisations concerned with animals in research. Some £185,000 was given to the fund for the replacement of animals in medical experiments (FRAME) to help with three projects: a feasibility study of validation of in vitro techniques which might replace animal experiments; work on a possible database of tissue culture techniques; and on examination of the use of human tissue cultures instead of animals in medical research and toxicity testing. Some £30,000 was given to the universities federation for animal welfare (UFAW) to support an evaluation of the effects of various cage sizes and social groupings on the well-being of laboratory rats.

With the passing of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office established a scheme which is administered by a sub-committee of the Animal Procedures Committee to grant aid research to reduce, refine or replace the use of living animals in scientific procedures. The Home Office also funds research concerned with the welfare of laboratory animals. In 1988–89, the first year of the operation of the scheme, it was decided to fund the following four projects:

  1. (i) Dr. P. A. Botham and Dr. G. J. A. Oliver, ICI Central Toxicology Laboratory. "Validation of an enucleated eye model" (£26,700 over two years)
  2. (ii) Dr. A. F. Bristow and Dr. S. Poole, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. "Assay of Pyrogens measuring lymphokine production in vitro". (£72,700 over three years)
  3. (iii) Dr. A. Robinson, Public Health Laboratory Service "Alternative potency tests for cellular pertenssis". (£9,800 over three years)
  4. (iv) Dr. R. M. Stagg, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland "Fish cell culture for toxicity assessment". (£25,700 over two years)

In 1989–90 it was decided to fund the following projects:

  1. (i) Dr. M. E. G. Boursell, AFRC Institute for Animal Health. "Recombinant vaccine against infectious burial disease virus". (£77,700 over three years)
  2. (ii) Dr. M. Ferguson, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. "The use of in vitro assays for the potency of rabies vaccines". (£10,000 over two years)
  3. (iii) Mr. A. Knight, Wellcome Research Laboratories. "A replacement for the clostridium chauvoei vaccine potency test". (£67,000 over three years).
  4. (iv) Professor D. B. Morton, University of Birmingham. "Evaluation of welfare in the husbandry of laboratory rabbits". (£59,900 over three years).

In addition, on the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee research sub-committee, the Home Office commissioned a report of an investigation into antibody production. The Home Office has also supported, and part-funded, international work on acute toxicity testing aimed at further reducing the need for formal LD50 tests.

Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in theOfficial Report the number of experiments on live animals carried out in each year since the 1986 provisions took effect, showing how many animals were used for scientific testing in each year.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

The information is published in table 18 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1988", Cm. 743, a copy of which is in the Library.