HC Deb 17 April 2000 vol 348 cc379-80W
Mr. Baker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government spent on research and development in relation to methods of conducting(a) animal experiments and (b) non-animal alternatives to vivisection in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [118826]

Mr.Mike O'Brien

Most work done on alternatives is neither done by the Government nor with Government money. Nonetheless, each year, the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for the research into the development and promotion of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. Through national advertising, the APC Research and Alternatives Sub-Committee invites applications for funding of suitable projects. It then selects the most appropriate and monitors progress. Details of completed research for 1998 is published in the Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1998.

The budget available to the Committee in 1998–99 for this purpose was £259,000 (an increase of 42 per cent. from £182,000 the previous year). However, this is not the only money spent by the Government on alternatives: other Departments also fund such work; estimates of spending reach approximately £2 million each year. Industry, too, spends millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives.

On an international level, the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (now known as the Unit for the Validation of Biological Testing Methods) through contributions to the European Union. It is the unit's task to monitor and co-ordinate research into alternatives and to develop the processes of validation—that is, the assessment of alternative methods to see whether they are reliable and whether they produce a level of information similar to the animal based tests they are to replace. The lack of progress in some areas is more often due to the limitations of science than to inadequate funding.

Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations have been made to him on the LD50 tests in the last six months; and if he will make a statement; [118900]

(2) what representations have been made to him this year on licences for the LD50 tests; if his Department examines alternative methods before granting such licences; and if he will make a statement. [118902]

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 624W and to the replies I gave the hon. Gentleman on 4 april 2000, Official Report, column 437W and on 10 April 2000, Official Report, column 72W.

No new licences authorising the LD50 test (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Guide 401) have been issued since 21 October 1999. Representations made on two licences under section 12 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were both withdrawn recently and the licence holders have agreed to submit the licences for removal of authority for the LD50 test.

Mr. Hancock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him on reducing the number of dogs used in regulatory toxicology; and if he will make a statement. [118901]

Mr. Mike O'Brien

The Government recognise the particular concern about the use of dogs in scientific procedures. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals may only be used where there are no alternatives and where the benefits of the programme outweigh any suffering caused to the animals concerned. In addition, certain species (such as dogs, cats and primates) can only be used where animals of no other species are suitable. Special conditions, tailored to each project, control and minimise any pain or suffering caused.

I receive correspondence from members of the public who find it particularly difficult to accept that species that are kept as domestic pets or companion animals are also used in procedures. Such animals must be purpose-bred and supplied only by designated establishments. Dogs are only used in about 0.25 per cent. of all procedures. (The results of this work have produced medicines which have cured illness, saved human lives and indeed added to veterinary science which have assisted animal care.)

I have not received representations direct, but I am aware of recent campaign material on the subject from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.