§ 39. Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of animal experiments that will be carried out in 1998–99 under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [40301]
§ Mr. George HowarthStatistics on animal use can be collated only in retrospect and this is done on a calendar year basis. We expect to publish the figures for 1997 in July. We do not expect a significant increase.
We cannot predict the number of procedures that will take place in the coming year. Although project licence applicants must estimate how many animals are to be used per year in each protocol, these figures are not collated centrally and, in practice, the number of animals actually used falls short of this estimate. We cannot predict the number of new project licence applications that we will receive during the year, or the number of animals that each will seek authority to use.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 does not make provision for controlling the overall number of procedures; it requires that project licences be granted only if the benefits have been weighed against the costs and the purpose of the work cannot be achieved by other means. Whilst 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 proposed programmes will satisfy the requirements of the Act, particularly the cost/benefit assessment. The number of scientific procedures involving animals is dependent on a number of factors, including the implications of scientific breakthroughs and the buoyancy of United Kingdom industry.
The primary purpose of the 1986 Act is to reduce suffering. In consequence, where there is a choice between one protocol involving a certain number of animals and a more severe protocol involving fewer animals, the former will, in many cases, be authorised. One of the roles played by the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate is to ensure that applications to use animals have taken full account of the 3Rs concept of alternatives (refining procedures to minimise suffering; reducing the number of animals used; and replacing procedures with ones not involving protected animals), while ensuring that the scientific integrity and value of the work is not compromised.
The overall number of procedures is not a true indication of the effectiveness of the Act.
§ Mr. FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to end the testing of cosmetics on animals; and if he will make a statement. [41097]
52W
§ Mr. George HowarthWe have already announced an end to the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals in the United Kingdom and we are exploring the possibility of extending this ban to cover ingredients intended primarily for "vanity products". (The European definition of cosmetics includes sun screens, toothpastes and other products which may be considered to be pharmaceuticals in other countries).
European Directives require that new and, in certain circumstances, existing ingredients be tested to ensure that they are safe to use, manufacture and transport. For these purposes, animal tests are still required.
§ Mr. FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of experiments conducted on animals in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [41098]
§ Mr. George HowarthThe Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 does not make provision for controlling the overall number of procedures; it requires that project licences be granted only if the benefits have been weighed against the costs and the purpose of the work cannot be achieved by other means. We cannot dictate how many applications for new project licences will be submitted, or how many proposed programmes will satisfy the requirements of the Act, particularly the cost/benefit assessment.
We are promoting the development, validation and use of alternative methods which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed and refine procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). To this end: we have announced our intention to explore, with the Animal Procedures Committee and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), the possibility of promoting databases on alternative methods; we have increased the money made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research on alternatives from £182,000 to £259,000; we will be requiring project licence applicants to state what consideration they have given to alternatives before a licence is granted; and we are discussing with regulators how best to apply the 3Rs to regulatory safety testing.