HC Deb 08 December 1998 vol 322 cc108-10W
Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total budget for the Animal Procedures Committee in each of the last five years; and what proportion of the budget in each year was allocated to sponsor research on alternatives to animal experimentation. [62389]

Mr. George Howarth

The Animal Procedures Committee does not have a budget. It advises on how the Home Office budget for sponsoring research into alternatives should be used. The Home Office also has a budget to reimburse the expenses of Committee members and, from this year, has a budget to remunerate the Chairman.

In each of the last five years, these budgets have totalled:

£000
Year Research Expenses Chairman?s remuneration
1998–99 259 20 10
1997–98 182 22 —
1996–97 242 17 —
1995–96 253 1— —
1994–95 272 1— —
1 These figures are not available

Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animal procedures inspectors were(a) budgeted for and (b) in post in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [62487]

Mr. George Howarth

The number of inspectors in post and the total number of posts at 31 December in each of the last five years are as follows:

Year Inspectors in post Inspectorate posts
1997 18 118
1996 17 18
1995 18 18
1994 19 19
1993 20 21
1 Additional funding was secured during 1997 to increase the complement of the Inspectorate to 21 during financial year 1998–99.

There are currently 21 inspectors in post.

Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement each of the recommendations made in the Animal Procedures Committee interim report on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [62486]

Mr. George Howarth

I refer the hon. Member to pages 40–42 of the Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997, which was published and laid in the Library on 26 November 1998.

Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that animals are used in scientific procedures only where justified; and what additional restrictions have been introduced since 1 May 1997. [62388]

Mr. George Howarth

In addition to the progress outlined by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, in a reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 473–74, we recently announced that we had secured an end to the use of animals in the United Kingdom for the testing of cosmetics ingredients.

Project licence applications and ongoing work will continue to be carefully scrutinised by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to ensure that programmes of work are justified, in the sense that: the potential benefits outweigh the likely costs to the animals involved; non-animal alternatives are used wherever possible; and where animals have to be used, the least suffering is caused to the fewest number of animals of the lowest sentience.

The ethical review processes that will be required in all designated establishments from April 1999 will also have an important role to play in ensuring that animals can be used only when it is absolutely justified.

While the use of animals in many areas, especially medical research and testing, will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future, we will continue to look for opportunities to eliminate types of animal use where suitable alternatives become available or where that use is no longer justified by the benefits that might accrue.

Dr. Palmer

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that are currently in force and involve the use of drugs have(a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified security banding. [62374]

Mr. George Howarth

Aggregate information on whether project licences authorise the use of drugs—either research on drugs (including pharmaceuticals) or research involving drugs including those where analgesics or anaesthetics are used to reduce pain and suffering—could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.