Parliamentary questions
Shellfish: Testing (3 Feb 2010)
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government plan to replace arrangements for the safety testing of shellfish with alternatives which do not require testing on animals. [312690]
Meg Hillier: Yes. The Government are fully committed to replacing the current testing arrangements for biotoxins in shellfish with non-animal alternatives. The Home Office has been working on this matter with the Food Standards Agency which is responsible for the monitoring programme for algal toxins in shellfish harvesting areas.
For one group of toxins (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) toxins), a non-animal method of testing has already been introduced to test mussels and accounts for more than 90 per cent. of all shellfish samples tested for PSP. Subject to review by the FSA of validation data, the method will be extended to additional shellfish species later this year. Another non-animal testing method is also being developed for lipophilic toxins (including Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP)) with the intention of having a validated method for testing mussels available for use in the monitoring programme by June 2011.
The testing arrangements are required as part of the EU food hygiene requirements for shellfish harvesting areas. The legislation specifies the methods to be used in testing and for most toxins the biological (animal) methods are specified as the reference method.
http://www.prlog.org/10411988-reduce-cruelty-to-mice-in-testing-botulinum-toxin-by-introduction-of-snap25-assay.html
Chemicals: Animal Experiments
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will bring forward proposals to require the chemical industry to minimise the number of animals used in testing covered by the provisions of the EU Regulation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. [312689]
Dan Norris: The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation contains strong provisions to minimise the amount of animal testing by EU-based companies when compiling their substance registration dossiers. These require that animal tests be the last resort, with the use of non-animal test methods instead wherever possible, and prohibit the repetition and duplication of animal tests. REACH also requires that when preparing registration dossiers, data derived from animal tests must be shared between all members of a Substance Information Exchange Forum (SIEF) in order to achieve this. Where further tests are necessary to complete registrations for substances on the market in quantities of 10 tonnes or more per year, then proposals must be submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for approval before any such tests are undertaken, so pre-emptive testing would be illegal. Part of this approval process involves a 45-day public consultation on the test proposals, so that third parties have the opportunity to provide information on the substance that would render the proposed animal tests unnecessary.
In order to help companies address the issue of using animal tests when preparing registration dossiers, a short guidance note has been published on the DEFRA website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/chemicals/reach/index.htm
which draws attention to these legal requirements, and suggests a number of possible non-animal alternative test methods including chemical grouping and read-across approaches, use of (Quantitative) Structural Activity Relationships (QSARs), and in vitro tests. Information can also be provided by way of a weight of evidence assessment, and certain tests specified in REACH may also be waived where it can be shown that exposure of humans or the environment to a substance is insignificant or absent.
It is important that companies remember that they should not be undertaking animal testing for REACH registration before their test proposals are approved by ECHA as being necessary. Companies should actively look for alternatives to animal testing wherever possible, and refer to the REACH Test Methods Regulation for what is available for use. Other internationally-valid non-animal test methods that do not appear in the Test Methods Regulation may also be used. However, where animal tests are the last resort, then companies should use the most refined method possible to reduce the numbers of animals involved.
ECHA has published detailed guidance on data-sharing and information requirements for the REACH registration process on its website, and the UK REACH Competent Authority (provided by the Health and Safety Executive) is also shortly to publish a guidance leaflet for industry on animal testing and use of alternatives on its website. This will explain the REACH testing obligations, help with identifying the most appropriate test method, with information on the various available non-animal test methods.
Shellfish: Testing
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were used in the safety testing of shellfish in 2008; which shellfish were being tested; and for which poisons the animals were tested. [311019]
Meg Hillier: EU Directive 91/492/EEC, and Commission Decision 2002/225/EC, specify the shellfish types, toxin classes, and test methods used.
However, with respect to the animal numbers used, the information requested is not available, in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (implementing the Statistics and Registration Act 2007) and the National Statistician's guidance 'Confidentiality of Official Statistics'. Providing the information requested would breach statistical confidentiality relating to individual establishments and individual licensees.
Animal experiments in Wales
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales were recorded in 2008; and how many of those resulted in a prosecution. [306301]
Meg Hillier: During 2008 there was one infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 recorded for a designated establishment in Wales, it did not result in a prosecution.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were conducted in Wales in 2008. [306291]
Meg Hillier: The number of scientific procedures on living animals started under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales in 2008 was 49,452.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places in Wales were designated as (a) a supplying establishment, (b) a breeding establishment and (c) a scientific procedure establishment under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at the end of 2008. [306299]
Meg Hillier: As at 31 December 2008, in Wales, seven places were designated as user establishments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, one was designated as a supplying establishment and two were designated as breeding establishments.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the primary purpose was of each (a) procedure and (b) field of research carried out on animals in Wales in 2008 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving (i) fish, (ii) pigs and (iii) genetically modified animals; and what the reasons were for the increase in the number of procedures carried out on (A) fish, (B) pigs and (C) genetically modified animals in Wales in that year in relation to the previous year; [306302]
(2) what proportion of the regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which were conducted in Wales in 2008 were performed in (a) public health laboratories, (b) universities and medical schools, (c) national health service hospitals, (d) Government departments, (e) other public bodies, (f) non-profit making organisations and (g) commercial organisations; [306292]
(3) how many (a) genetically modified animals and (b) animals with a harmful genetic defect were used in regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which were conducted in Wales in 2008. [306290]
Meg Hillier: In line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (implementing the Statistics and Registration Act 2007), and the National Statistician's guidance "Confidentiality of Official Statistics", the information requested is not available. Providing the information requested would breach statistical confidentiality relating to individual establishments.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many procedures carried out on animals in Wales in 2008 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involved (a) New World primates and (b) Old World primates; and what the primary purposes of those procedures were. [306303]
Meg Hillier: There were no scientific procedures on living animals started under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales in 2008 using primates.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in force in Wales at the end of 2008 were in the (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified severity banding. [306297]
Meg Hillier: During 2008, in Wales, 61 per cent. of the project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were in the mild severity banding, 39 per cent. in moderate, there were none in substantial or unclassified.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which were conducted in Wales in 2008 were conducted for (a) fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology and (b) toxicity tests or other safety and efficacy evaluation. [306293]
Meg Hillier: All the scientific procedures on living animals started in 2008 in Wales under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 related to fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which were conducted in Wales in 2008 involved (a) cats, (b) dogs, (c) rabbits, (d) horses and other equids, (e) New World primates and (f) Old World primates which (i) were genetically modified and (ii) had a harmful genetic defect. [306294]
Meg Hillier: In 2008 there were no such procedures in Wales nor in Great Britain as a whole (Table three, Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2008, available from the Library of the House-HC800).
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) mice, (b) rats, (c) guinea pigs, (d) hamsters, (e) rabbits, (f) horses and other equids, (g) sheep, (h) pigs, (i) birds, (j) amphibians, (k) reptiles, (l) fish, (m) cats, (n) dogs, (o) New World primates and (p) Old World primates were used in procedures conducted in Wales and regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2008. [306295]
Meg Hillier: In line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (implementing the Statistics and Registration Act 2007), and the National Statistician's guidance "Confidentiality of Official Statistics", the information requested is not available. Providing the information requested would breach statistical confidentiality relating to individual establishments.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual animals were used in procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales in 2008. [306296]
Meg Hillier: During 2008, in Wales, there were 48,507 animals used in scientific procedures on living animals started under the 1986 Act.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 carried out in Wales in 2008 were conducted without anaesthesia. [306298]
Meg Hillier: During 2008, in Wales, 52 per cent. of the scientific procedures on living animals started under the 1986 Act used no form of anaesthesia.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences in respect of work to be carried out in Wales were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2008; and how many such project licences were in force at the end of 2008. [306300]
Meg Hillier: During 2008 23 project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales. On 31 December 2008 there were 77 project licences in force in Wales.
The Ugly Truth
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were used in regulated procedures at Wickham Laboratories in 2008; and how many such procedures were re-uses. [302772]
Meg Hillier: I am unable to disclose the number of animals used in regulated procedures at Wickham Laboratories in 2008.
Information on number of animals used in regulated procedures relating to individual establishments cannot be disclosed in order to protect statistical confidentiality, in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (implementing the Statistics and Registration Act 2007) and the national statistician's guidance "Confidentiality of Official Statistics".
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulated procedures were carried out on animals at Wickham Laboratories in 2008; and how many of these involved potency testing of botulinum toxin. [302811]
Meg Hillier: I am unable to disclose how many regulated procedures were carried out on animals at Wickham Laboratories in 2008 and how many of those involved potency testing of botulinum toxin.
Information on number of regulated procedures relating to individual establishments cannot be disclosed in order to protect statistical confidentiality, in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (implementing the Statistics and Registration Act 2007) and the national statistician's guidance "Confidentiality of Official Statistics".
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce who has been chosen to conduct the special investigation of animal testing at Wickham Laboratories; and when he expects this investigation to be completed. [305090]
Meg Hillier [holding answer 8 December 2009]: The review will be led by a superintending inspector from the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate who will be assisted by two independent experts. I anticipate that the review will be completed early in 2010.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer of 11 November 2009, Official Report, column 416W, on animal welfare, whether the guidance relating to named veterinary surgeons takes account of circumstances in which such a veterinary surgeon is a shareholder in a company owning a scientific procedures establishment. [304697]
Meg Hillier: Paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC321) dealing with conflicts of interest do not make specific reference to circumstances in which an individual is a shareholder in a company owning a scientific procedures establishment in which they are the named veterinary surgeon. However, all relevant circumstances will be taken into account when considering any suggestion that a potential conflict of interest exists.
The Ugly Truth about botox
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breaches in (a) project and (b) personal licences occurred at Wickham Laboratories between 2003 and 2008; and if he will provide details in each case. [302812]
Meg Hillier: For security reasons it is not Home Office policy to disclose the compliance record of individual establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of botox produced in the UK which has been used for (a) cosmetic and (b) medical procedures. [302661]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 30 November 2009]: This information is not collected centrally.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions botox has been used in medical procedures performed by the NHS in each of the last three years. [302666]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 30 November 2009]: The available information is shown in the following table:
Count of Finished Consultant Episode (FCEs) where there was a main or secondary procedure of Torsion dystonias and other involuntary movements drugs Band 1 Activity in English NHS hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector
| FCEs (Thousand) | |
| 2008-09 |
26.3, 1 Dec 2009 : Column 651W |
| 2007-08 | 19.9 |
| 2006-07 | 12.8 |
Notes: 1. A FCE is defined as a continuous period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. FCEs are counted against the year in which they end. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of different patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the same stay in hospital or in different stays in the same year. 2. The Number of episodes with a (named) main or secondary procedure represent the number of episodes where the procedure (or intervention) was recorded in any of the 24 (12 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and four prior to 2002-03) operative procedure fields in a Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) record. A record is only included once in each count, even if the procedure is recorded in more than one operative procedure field of the record. It should be noted that more procedures are carried out than episodes with a main or secondary procedure. For example, patients under going a 'cataract operation' would tend to have at least two procedures-removal of the faulty lens and the fitting of a new one-counted in a single episode. Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.
The Ugly Truth
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he permits rabbits to be tested more than once in pyrogen tests under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [300322]
Meg Hillier: The re-use of rabbits in pyrogen tests is permitted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Consent for re-use of animals in procedures is generally conditional upon the animal having suffered no significant adverse effects as a consequence of the first use, and its not having been subjected to any intervention which compromises its suitability as a subject for the second or subsequent protocol. Authority to re-use any animal that has experienced significant adverse effects in its previous use is unlikely to be granted.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many facilities are licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to carry out pyrogen tests on rabbits. [300323]
Meg Hillier: Home Office records show that four establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have completed statistical returns during the last three years reporting pyrogen tests on rabbits.
The Ugly Truth About Botox
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud of 1 September 2008, Official Report, column 1518W, on animal experiments, what recent representations he has received on the practice of using death as an experimental endpoint in projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [298645]
Alan Johnson [holding answer 9 November 2009]: The Home Office received on 2 November 2009 a report from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) which included representations on death as an experimental endpoint in animals used on projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are considering those representations and will respond accordingly in due course.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits by inspectors of scientific procedures on animals have been made to Wickham Laboratories in the last two years; how long each visit lasted; and what report inspectors made on each visit. [298182]
Meg Hillier: Wickham Laboratories was visited by a Home Office inspector four times in 2007 and four times in 2008. There have also been four visits in 2009 to date.
At present we do not have details of how long each visit lasted and what report inspectors made on each visit. We will write separately as soon as the information is available.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department operates to ensure that veterinary surgeons do not have conflicts of interest under section 6(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [298323]
Meg Hillier: Section 3.19 of the Guidance of the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC321) stipulates that when a named veterinary surgeon (NVS) has under any other statutory role under the terms of the 1986 Act a substantial interest in the scientific outcome of a programme of work, alternative provision should be made for the veterinary oversight of the animals in question.
Where the named veterinary surgeon holds a project licence, a different veterinary surgeon should be nominated to perform the duties of the named veterinary surgeon for that project.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 require the substances or products which may be tested on animals to be specified. [298337]
Meg Hillier: It is not Home Office practice to authorise individual studies. Instead, the relevant project licences permit the testing of specified classes of materials, such as medical and veterinary materials and chemicals, using specified methods, generally conducted according to international test guidelines. In addition the licences specify the checks that will be made about what is already known about the substance to be tested and the order in which the tests may be done. Other than in the case of vaccines or other biological materials requiring batch testing, such licences do not usually name each substance in a particular class.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether licensees are required to obtain the specific approval of his Department before testing a particular substance on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [298338]
Meg Hillier: Licensees are not required to obtain the specific approval of his Department before testing a particular substance on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
It is not Home Office practice to authorise individual studies. Instead, the relevant project licences permit the testing of specified classes of materials, such as medical and veterinary materials and chemicals, using specified methods, generally conducted according to international test guidelines. In addition the licences specify the checks that will be made about what is already known about the substance to be tested and the order in which the tests may be done. Other than in the case of vaccines or other biological materials requiring batch testing, such licences do not usually name each substance in a particular class.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 he has rejected on the grounds that the procedures would cause severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated in each year since 2004. [297978]
Meg Hillier: We do not hold the information requested. A feature of the regulatory regime under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the discussion that often takes place at an early stage between applicants (or prospective applicants) and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. When serious deficiencies are discovered with the proposals during these early discussions with the local inspectors, or within the establishments’ local ethical review processes, proposals unlikely to meet the Act’s stringent requirements are revised or withdrawn before formal refusal becomes necessary.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department issues guidance on the use of live animals for the purposes of training in (a) cervical dislocation and (b) injecting procedures carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [297979]
Meg Hillier: Standard Condition 17 for designated scientific procedure establishments in Appendix B of the Guidance of the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 stipulates that the certificate holder is responsible for assuring competence for a non-regulated procedure such as humane killings by methods listed in schedule 1 of the 1986 Act.
Section 3.12 of the guidance stipulates that the project licence holder must ensure that personal licensees working under their control are adequately supervised and trained and that regulated procedures such as injecting substances are competently performed in accordance with the project licence authorities.
The training framework for those with key responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) 1986 is set out in Annex F of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Module 2 of the Animal Research Training Course provides training on humane methods of killing appropriate to the relevant species and on the job training provides practical skills which would include injection techniques. The Home Office has also issued a code of practice—The Humane Killing of Animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Only those with appropriate personal licence authorities may lawfully perform regulated procedures on protected animals and other than a limited range of specialist procedures project licences are not issued for training in manual skills.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Bolton South East of 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 232W, on the Home Office, what steps he has taken to ensure that botulinium toxin tested on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is not used off-label for cosmetic purposes. [297980]
Meg Hillier: The Government's position has not changed. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 the Home Office grants licences for the testing on live animals of botulinium toxin for products licensed for clinical purposes as a prescription-only medicine.
The Home Office does not license the use of animals for the testing of cosmetic ingredients or products.
The off-label use of botulinium toxin products manufactured for therapeutic purposes is not a matter over which the Home Office has any control. Regulation of the uses made of health care products is a matter for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is an executive agency of the Department of Health.
Cleaning Products
Mr G McHugh asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what plans her Department has to purchase cleaning, household or toiletry products which, including their contents, have not been tested on animals.
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Cleaning Products
Mr. Hutton: Cleaning services are generally procured by the Ministry of Defence through wider Facilities Management and PFI contracts. The MOD requires contractors to comply with all applicable legislation. Above this, the Department does not have a specific policy regarding animal testing.
Animal Experiments: Birds
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 9,120 other birds used in scientific procedures in 2008 were (a) passerines (songbirds) and (b) taken from the wild; and whether his Department plans to provide details of species used in future such statistical releases. [311020]
Meg Hillier: Passerines of a wide range of species are thought to account for a significant proportion of the 9,120 'other birds' based on the information received as part of the data collection, however exact numbers are not available.
Information is not collected as part of the data collection on the source of such animals which are not Schedule 2 listed, however it is believed that few if any were taken from the wild.
The large majority of these 9,120 animals were used in studies where the primary field of research was indicated as 'Zoology' (4,837 animals) or as 'Ecology and environmental studies other than toxicology/safety evaluation' (3,043 animals).
There are no plans at present to provide details of the species used within the 'Other birds' category. However the data collection and publication is kept under review to meet user needs and legislative requirements, in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, and is subject to assessment by the UK Statistics Authority under the Statistics and Registration Act 2007.
Animal Experiments: Licensing
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has plans to review the provisions of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in respect of the licensing of scientific procedures on animals. [283522]
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were granted in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 2007 and (d) 2008 for research on non-human primates that included water deprivation as a permissible motivational tool; to which species of non-human primates such licences related; and for what reasons such licences are granted. [275416]
Mr. Alan Campbell: Under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, control of fluid intake is used to motivate monkeys so that they will perform extended sequences of behaviour in behavioural neuroscience experiments. The monkeys are trained to perform simple or complex tasks for which small amounts of a fluid, referred to as rewards or reinforcers, are used to motivate the animals and maintain behavioural or cognitive performance. The fluid control may involve limiting the time fluid is available, or may involve reducing the total amount fluid provided per day. Ultimately, thirst and the food reward for continuing the task, becomes a motivator for reliable performance.
The following table shows the number of licences granted from 2005 to date authorising fluid control procedure under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
|
|
Number of licences granted authorising fluid control |
Non-human primate species |
|
2005 |
4 |
Macaques |
|
2006 |
0 |
None |
|
2007 |
3 |
Macaques |
|
2008 |
2 |
1 Macaque, 1 Marmoset |
Animal Experiments: Imports
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 January 2009, Official Report, column 268W, what recent representations she has received on breeding of long-tailed macaques for research in Cambodia, with particular reference to the Vanny Bio-Research Centre. [274143]
14 May 2009 : Column 925W
Departmental Detergents
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that no cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products used by his Department have been tested on animals.
Gillian Merron: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy in relation to cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products is to avoid animal testing at all costs unless it is mandated by legal requirement. Products tested on animals would be used only within the definition of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) set up to protect human health and the environment.
Department of Health
Departmental Detergents
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that no cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products used by his Department have been tested on animals.
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department does not purchase directly any cleaning products. Our cleaning contractor Resource has advised that its suppliers do have policies and a copy of these will be placed in the Library.
Culture, Media and Sport
Departmental Detergents
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to ensure that no cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products used by his Department have been tested on animals.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Department does not use any cleaning products or ingredients that have been tested on animals.
WALES
Departmental Detergents
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that no cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products used by his Department have been tested on animals. [261118]
Mr. Paul Murphy: No cleaning products, or ingredients contained within them, used in my Department have been tested on animals.
JUSTICE
Departmental Detergents
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make it his policy to ensure that no cleaning products or ingredients of cleaning products used by his Department have been tested on animals. [261122]
Mr. Malik: The Ministry of Justice does not have a corporate policy on cleaning products being tested on animals. However, HM Prison Service's current contract for provision of cleaning products is free from products tested on animals and this contract may be extended to the whole of the Ministry of Justice as part of the wider rationalisation of the procurement of goods and services.
