HC Deb 21 November 1996 vol 285 cc636-7W
Mr. Michael

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding the Government have made available for research into alternatives to animal testing in the past five years; what plans he has to increase this funding; and if he will make a statement. [5012]

Mr. Sackville

Figures for the total Government spending on research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures are not available. With regard to the Animal Procedures Committee, the Home Office has in the last five years made the following funds available:

  • 1991–92: £215,000
  • 1992–93: £253,000
  • 1993–94: £308,000
  • 1994–95: £273,000
  • 1995–96: £253,000.

There are no plans to increase the level of funding.

Mr. Michael

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of the applications which his Department has received in the past year for licences to carry out animal tests, and the reasons why the applications were granted or not; and if he will make a statement. [5014]

Mr. Sackville

Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of such information.

Mr. Michael

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that research into alternative methods to animal testing and the validation of such methods by public bodies and private companies is co-ordinated; and if he will make a statement. [5016]

Mr. Sackville

The United Kingdom Government helped to establish and subsequently endorsed the European centre for the validation of alternative methods—ECVAM. It is the job of the centre to co-ordinate research into alternative methods including developmental and subsequent validation work.

Mr. Michael

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the licensing process for animal tests; if he will make it his policy to include(a) more rigorous cost-benefit analysis for the proposed testing, (b) details of what alternative tests have been considered and (c) the reasons why such alternatives cannot be used instead of the animal tests; and if he will make a statement. [5013]

Mr. Sackville

We have no plans to revise the licensing process. We are satisfied that the current cost-benefit analysis required under section 54 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is sufficiently rigorous. The need to consider alternative tests is adequately addressed by section 54 of the Act.

Mr. Michael

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken at an international level to ensure that alternative methods to animal tests are accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [5015]

Mr. Sackville

The acceptance of alternative methods can be achieved only by their validation and incorporation into harmonisation processes and international guidelines, such as those promulgated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

To this end, the Home Office jointly commissioned, in 1995, a study of the Draize eye irritation test and is liaising closely with regulators who represent United Kingdom interests in international forums.