§ Norman BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met(a) the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and (b) the National Anti-Vivisection Society. [188100]
§ Caroline FlintMy right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not met either organisation. The last meeting between a Home Office Minister and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection took place in October 2001. I was due to meet the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in February 2004, but that meeting was postponed. I met the National Anti-Vivisection Society in January 2004.
§ Norman BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) persons and (b) organisations (i) he, (ii) his Ministers and (iii) his officials have met in connection with animal experimentation since 1 January. [188101]
§ Caroline FlintHome Office Ministers and officials have regular meetings with the scientific community and animal protection groups in connection with the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is not practicable to list all of the meetings held. However, since 1 January 2004, in addition to meetings with licence holders and other staff working in establishments licensed under the 1986 Act, meetings have been held with the
Animal Procedures CommitteeAssociation of the British Pharmaceutical IndustryBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Council on Animal CareCoalition for Medical ProgressDepartment for the Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDepartment of HealthDepartment for Trade and IndustryEuropean centre for the Validation of Alternative MethodsFederation of European Laboratory Animal Science AssociationsFood Standards AgencyFund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical ExperimentsHealth and Safety ExecutiveInstitute of Animal TechniciansInternational Council for Laboratory Animal ScienceLaboratory Animal Breeders AssociationLaboratory Animals Science AssociationLaboratory Animals Veterinary AssociationMedical Health Regulatory AuthorityMedical Research CouncilNational Anti-Vivisection SocietyNational centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research1893WRoyal College of Veterinary SurgeonsRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsUncaged CampaignUnited States Department of Agriculture.
§ Norman BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 1 July 2004,Official Report, column 7WS, on the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, whether the publishing of anonymised information in relation to section 24 of the Animal Act 1986 (a) will include information on whether all possible alternative methods to animal experimentation were exhausted and (b) will be compulsory to all bodies undertaking animal experimentation; and whether bodies deemed to be in contravention of the Animals Act 1986 will have their licence removed immediately. [188153]
§ Caroline FlintThe ministerial statement of 1 July made clear that the Government are pressing ahead with plans to publish anonymised information about projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act.
All new project license applicants will be required to provide the information for publication as part of the licence application process—so it will be mandatory but not retrospective.
Final decisions have yet to be taken on the precise details to be provided, as field trial work is still in progress. However, it should be noted as regards alternatives to animal use, that under the 1986 Act the Home Office can only license projects when satisfied that no such alternatives exist.
Action taken on contraventions of the 1986 Act is determined by the particular circumstances of each case. Revocation of a license can be among the options to be considered.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, during his Department's monitoring of the Imutran xenotransplantation programme under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, primates were found dead in procedures of moderate severity. [187047]
§ Caroline FlintYes. 17 animals died between observation periods in procedures of moderate severity out of over 500 non-human primates used in the Imutran studies between July 1994 and March 2000. The evidence available at the time suggested that death occurred quickly with little suffering being experienced by the individual animals. None of the deaths raised issues of non-compliance with the relevant license authorities.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining his Department's definitions of(a) moderate severity and (b) substantial severity in animal experiments. [187048]
§ Caroline FlintThe categorisation of severity limits of protocols is explained in paragraph 5.42 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HG321). Protocols regarded as moderate include toxicity tests which do not involve lethal endpoints and many surgical procedures,1894W provided that suffering is controlled and minimised by effective post-operative analgesia and care. Protocols that have the potential to cause greater suffering but include controls which minimise severity, or terminate the protocol before the animal shows more than moderate adverse effects, may also be classed within the moderate severity limit. Protocols regarded as substantial are those that may result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These include acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity or death is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of anti-microbial agents and vaccines; major surgery; and some models of disease, where welfare may be seriously compromised. If it is expected that even one animal would suffer substantial effects, the procedure would merit a 'substantial' severity limit.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the results were of his Department's most recent monitoring of the progress made by Imutran in achieving each of the objectives in its project licence for xenotransplantation research. [187049]
§ Caroline FlintThe Imutran xenotransplantation research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 began in 1994 and ended in 2000. At different points in time, and on different projects, Imutran tackled a number of different, but related, scientific objectives. With one exception, all of the predicted benefits relevant to the licensed studies taken into account in the cost benefit assessment of their project licence applications were delivered. However, by the middle of 1999 it became clear that they were not making progress it identifying a clinically potentially safe and effective means of preventing or controlling delayed forms of xenograft organ rejection and that the incidence of surgical technical failures was rising. We concluded that no new studies should be undertaken unless and until the cause of the technical problems was identified and remedied and an acceptable revised strategy for making scientific progress was devised. As a result, and after discussions with Imutran, its main programme of work was suspended by administrative agreement rather than formal suspension of the licence authorities. Some more basic work was allowed to continue in pursuit it of secondary objectives. The Imutran project licences were eventually surrendered to the Home Office for revocation in July 2000.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes his Department has accepted and agreed to the original objectives in the project licence to Imutran for xenotransplantation research. [187050]
§ Caroline FlintThe Imutran research licensed by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving pig to non-human primate xenotransplantation studies began in 1994 and was carried out under three separate project licences. These licences set out retested objectives aimed at furthering Imutran's overall strategy ultimately to produce a means of making xenotransplantation clinically feasible. The specific objectives of the licensed work included the production of healthy, genetically altered pigs whose organs would not produce hyperacute rejection when transplanted into other species; demonstration of proof of concept; characterisation of other forms of xenograft rejection; and, having 1895W developed an immunosuppression strategy appropriate for human clinical use, the study of the biocompatibility and performance of solid organ and tissue xenografts. More detailed scientific objectives were also set within this general framework. These detailed objectives were reviewed and refined at intervals while the work was in progress. Where authorised, amendments were largely made to those parts of the programmes characterising later forms of xenograft rejection a id its management. The precise technical content of the amendments is commercially confidential.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an independent public inquiry into the Imutran xenotransplantation research programme; and if he will make a statement. [187057]
§ Caroline FlintNo. We have considered the matter very carefully, but concluded that the issues, including those regarding compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran Limited under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for its xenotransplantation research programme, do not merit such an inquiry. In November 2000, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) asked the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to carry out a routine assessment of compliance with the relevant authorities issued to Imutran Limited under the 1986 Act. The Chief Inspector's report, which covered five years work, was published on 13 July 2001 and copies placed in the Library. It confirmed that the general level of compliance was good. No new evidence justifying any form of further inquiry into these matters was found by the Chief Inspector nor has any subsequently been presented by any other source.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what systems are in place to ensure that the relationships between his inspectors involved in monitoring licences for animal experiments and the companies concerned are clear and objective. [187085]
§ Caroline FlintMembers of the Inspectorate are highly professional and dedicated and have the complete confidence of Government Ministers. The general civil service codes apply and in addition inspectors are accountable for their professional conduct to the relevant professional bodies (the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the General Medical Council). As Government employees, they have no conflicts of interest with respect to places, or persons, regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They ate not part of the management structure of the designated establishments, nor do they have any proprietary interest in the outcome of any licensed research programme. In addition, there is an active joint inspection programme, with more than one inspector visiting most places during the course of the year as part of the national inspection programme. Regulated places are also re-assigned between inspectors at regular intervals.
§ Norman BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many primates have been involved in projects regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 over the last 10 years(a) unclassified. (b) mild, (c) moderate and (d) substantial: in classifications of severity of suffering and if he will make a statement. [188715]
1896W
§ Caroline FlintThis information is not collected centrally. The numbers of scientific procedures involving non-human primates since 1994 are given in table 20 of the annual Command Paper "Statistics" of scientific procedures on living animals, 2003 (Cm 6291), a copy of which is in the Library.
A short table, giving the number of project licences in force at the end of that year according to severity bands, has been included in each annual publication since 1998. It is not, however, possible from that to identify the species used.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals have died following procedures which broke International Air Transport Association regulations; and if he will make a statement. [189390]
§ Caroline FlintI am unable to provide the information requested. Although specific instances may be reported to the Home Office as and when they occur, we do not routinely record the deaths in transit of animals destined for use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, or the surrounding circumstances. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for the enforcement of regulations governing the transportation of animals to the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason his Department did not take action in respect of the case of the three primates found dead en route to Huntingdon in 1998. [189393]
§ Caroline FlintIn fact, immediate action was taken. The three animals destined for use in research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were found dead on arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris from the Philippines on 5 August 1998. When the Home Office was notified of the deaths we immediately suspended authority to acquire animals from the source establishment until the causes had been properly investigated and any necessary action taken to prevent a recurrence. The problem was also promptly notified to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as the Department then responsible for enforcement of the regulations relating to the transportation of animals. While it was not possible to identify the causes of death, it was considered likely that a combination of the large size of the animals in relation to the transport containers and inadequate ventilation were a contributory factor. The source establishment co-operated fully and ensured that the size of the transport containers was increased and ventilation improved. No problems were detected with a further batch of animals imported in December 1998.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evidential basis is for the statement in paragraph 5.12.3 of the Home Office Chief Inspector's June 2001 Compliance Review, that a moratorium was voluntarily proposed and implemented by Imutran management in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [189112]
§ Caroline FlintParagraph 5.12.3 of the report on compliance with the authorities issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to Imutran Ltd. for xenotransplantation research, by the then Chief 1897W Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, is based on Home Office and Imutran Ltd. records. The Imutran progress report for January to June 1999 was the starting point for the discussions which led to the moratorium on the Imutran research. The terms of the moratorium were agreed after supplementary enquiries into the content of the report.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken with regard to its contract with Imutran following the Home Affairs Select Committee's Report; and what representations he has received. [189392]
§ Caroline FlintThe Home Office has no contract with Imutran Limited. Until 2000, staff of that company were licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to conduct xenotransplantation research. The work started in 1994 and the licences were surrendered in July 2000 following a decision by Imutran and its parent company to move the research programme to North America. The Home Office submitted evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in connection with the Imutran research in October 2003. As far as we are aware the Committee has not published a report on the research. The Home Office has received correspondence
Table A: the number of Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, by period and age group England and Wales Period Total issued Age 10 to 17 Age 18 to 20 Age 21 + Age not known 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 104 — — — 1104 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000 135 61 21 38 15 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 322 184 50 77 11 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 402 232 41 108 21 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 1,023 509 147 366 1 1 January 2004 to 31 March 2004 469 183 85 201 — Total 2,455 1,169 344 790 152 1Data collected by police force area on numbers of ASBOs only.
Table B: Number and percentage of young persons aged 18 to 20 who were prosecuted for breach of their ASBO and subsequently found guilty and sentenced to detention in a Young Offender Institution (YOI), from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 20021 Number Percentage Total proceedings for breach of an ASBO of which: 60 100 Sentenced to detention in YOI 30 50 Total found guilty of breach 57 95 1These figures have been compiled through a manual matching process between ASBO breaches reported on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database and data held on the ASBO database. Breach data for 2003 will be available in late Autumn. Note: Figures are based on principal disposal (severest penalty imposed) where more than one breach record exists.