HC Deb 07 March 2002 vol 381 cc517-8W
Mr. Chope

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to establish a mandatory central database for registering animal experiments to enable the sharing of results. [40373]

Angela Eagle

[holding answer 4 March 2002]: It is already Home Office policy to encourage the publication of the findings of research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, which assesses and advises on licence applications made under the 1986 Act, uses a range of resources to keep abreast of developments and results in research. The scientific community also maintains and uses databases to the same end.

However, the establishment of a mandatory central database for this purpose would be problematic. There would, in particular, be significant difficulties in ensuring the completeness and quality of the data and in ensuring that intellectual or commercial confidentiality were not compromised.

We believe that there is scope for further reducing the risk of duplication in the use of animals in scientific procedures by encouraging companies to share data. To this end, in August 2000, we announced an interdepartmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests. Progress in implementing the concordat will be reviewed in the next few months.

Moreover, there are a number of international and national initiatives to encourage data sharing. Most recent European directives under which regulatory work is done provide for the sharing of data. International assessment programmes have well-established and effective methods for data sharing, ensuring mutual acceptance of data and dissemination of information on chemicals. This also extends to dissemination of data to developing countries.

Mr. Chope

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote investment in alternatives to animal experiments; and if he will make a statement. [40372]

Angela Eagle

[holding answer 4 March 2002]: The use of alternatives is widely encouraged and the use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available. Any lack of progress in research into alternatives is more often due to the limitations of science rather than inadequate funding.

Most work on alternatives is neither done by Government nor with Government money, as industry spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives. None the less, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget for research aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Details of completed research projects are published in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office. The amount made available to the Committee for 2001–02 for this specific purpose has increased to £280,000.

This is not the only money spent by the Government on the development of alternatives, as other Departments are also active in this area. Indeed, it is estimated that the total spent by the United Kingdom Government is in the region of £2 million each year. To take this further on an international level, we will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union.