Breaking News
- Animal testing ban sparks rise in new alternatives for skin allergy
- Urgent Appeal - Help stop monkey shipments to the USA!
- MPs join BUAV at Downing Street to deliver open letter calling for independent inquiry into Imperial College London
- Over 1,400 monkeys have been exported from Mauritius for research this year
- Celebrities, politicians, scientists & academics join BUAV call for independent inquiry at Imperial college London
Parliamentary Activity
The BUAV works with supportive MPs to investigate the facts about animal experiments and to press for progress. This page provides an overview of questions on different categories of animal experiments put in recent Parliamentary sessions.
Cosmetics
26 April 2011
Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what scientific advice he has received on the alternative testing techniques available to the cosmetics industry following the introduction of the prohibition on the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 2013.
Ed Davey: The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of the use of animals in Research (NC3Rs)-an organisation funded by the Department-provides scientific input to policy on the development of alternative techniques for the testing of cosmetic products on animals.
Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what representations he has received from representatives of the cosmetics industry on the preparedness of that industry for the prohibition on the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 2013;
(2) what representations he has made to the European Commission on the implementation in 2013 of the seventh amendment to Council Directive 76/768/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1223/200 on the testing of cosmetics on animals.
Ed Davey: I have not received representations from the cosmetics industry, neither have I made representations to the European Commission on the subject.
5 April 2011
Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Belfast East of 14 February 2011, Official Report, column 566W, on animal welfare, by what date he expects to be able to determine his policy on the implementation of the 7th amendment to Council Directive 76/768/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1223/200 on the testing of cosmetics on animals in 2013.
Ed Davey: This will depend entirely on the date of publication of the European Commission impact assessment on the effects of the ban.
14 February 2011
Naomi Long: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make representations to the European Commission to keep the deadline of March 2013 for marketing of new cosmetic products tested on animals.
Ed Davey: Under the terms of the coalition agreement we shall continue to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. However, the European Commission is currently conducting an impact assessment on the effects of the 2013 marketing ban, and it would not be appropriate to pre-judge a UK position when such evidence will be made available.
31 January 2011
Neil Parish: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on (a) Directive 86/609/ECC and (b) the use of animal-testing for cosmetic products.
Jim Paice: DEFRA has had no such recent discussions. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has responsibility for animal testing for cosmetic products.
Household products ban
18 May 2011
Baroness Smith of Basildon: To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made on the implementation of the ban on testing household products on animals; and whether a date for implementation of the ban has been set.
Baroness Browning: We are working towards delivering the ban on the testing of household products on animals through the conditions of licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I am not yet in a position to set a date for implementation of the ban.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110518w0001.htm#11051884001530
28 March 2011
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bristol East of 31 January 2011, Official Report, columns 646-47W, on animal experiments, when she expects to make an announcement on the date for a ban on the testing of household products on animals; to which ingredients used in household products the ban will extend; and what definition of the term household product her Department uses.
Lynne Featherstone: There is no authoritative definition of "household product" in UK or European legislation. For the purposes of the proposed prohibition on testing of such products on animals we plan to apply the definition of "substances used in the household" used for reporting purposes in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals published annually. This includes all products that are primarily intended for use in the home, including detergents and other laundry products, household cleaners, air-fresheners, toilet blocks, polishes, paper products such as infant nappies, paints, glues (and removers), other furnishing and DIY products and household pesticides. The prohibition will apply to both finished household products and their ingredients, although in practice mainly the latter are tested. We are working towards delivering the prohibition through the conditions of licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and will announce the outcome as soon as this work is complete.
31 January 2011
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2010, Official Report, column 68W, on animal experiments, by what date she expects a ban on the testing of household products on animals to have been implemented.
Lynne Featherstone: I am not yet in a position to give a date on when a ban on the testing of household products on animals will be implemented.
We are currently finalising the practical arrangements for its implementation. I expect to announce these arrangements shortly.
26 July 2010
David Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her policy is on the testing of household products on animals.
Lynne Featherstone: The coalition Government have pledged to end the testing of household products on animals. Work is under way to define the range of products affected and to determine how an end to such testing can best be achieved.
5 July 2010
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to bring forward proposals to end the testing of household products on animals.
Lynne Featherstone: The Government are committed to ending the testing of household products on animals. Work is under way to define the range of products affected and to determine how this can best be achieved. I am not yet in a position to confirm when such testing will be finally brought to an end, but hope to be able to do so shortly.
22 June 2010
Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects the prohibition on testing of household products on animals to come into force; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: The Government are committed to ending the testing of household products on animals. Work is under way to define the range of products affected and to determine how this can best be achieved. I am not yet in a position to confirm when such testing will be finally brought to an end, but hope to be able to do so shortly.
Primates
18 May 2011
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will bring forward proposals to reduce the 12-year period for ending the use of wild caught primates for scientific research in the UK.
Lynne Featherstone: Article 10 of European Directive 2010/63 requires that animals of all species of non-human primate used in scientific procedures must be purpose bred unless there is justification for the use of wild caught animals. The United Kingdom has operated a similar policy since 1995 and has not authorised the first time use of wild caught primates for more than 10 years.
Article 10 also requires that from the dates set out in Annex II to the Directive all non-human primates should be the offspring of animals bred in captivity or sourced from self sustaining colonies. Under Article 10, the European Commission must carry out a feasibility study by 10 November 2017 to confirm or amend the dates in Annex II. The United Kingdom contribution to the feasibility study will be considered at the appropriate time when consulted by the Commission.
Directive 2010/63/EU must be implemented by member states from 1 January 2013.
26 April 2011
Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her policy is on the use of monkeys for experimental purposes in laboratories.
Lynne Featherstone: The Government recognizes that many people have a particular concern about the use of non-human primates. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 they, together with some other species, are given special protection and can only be used where animals of no other species are suitable.
31 March 2011
Chris Williamson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many and (b) what species of non-human primates imported for the purposes of scientific research were categorised as (i) captive-born or F1 generation and (ii) captive-bred or F2+ generation in 2010.
Lynne Featherstone: The information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, but does not record whether animals are Fl or F2+. However, from other information available we estimate the respective totals to be as follows:
|
Primate species |
F1 |
F2+ |
Total |
|
Rhesus macaque |
0 |
92 |
92 |
|
Cynomolgus macaque |
1,256 |
582 |
1,838 |
|
Total |
1,256 |
674 |
1,930 |
Chris Williamson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what species of non-human primates were imported into the UK for the purposes of scientific research in 2010; from which countries; and what the species was in each case.
Lynne Featherstone: The requested information is as follows:
|
Number of non-human primates imported in 2010 reported to date |
|||
|
Country of export |
Rhesus macaque |
Cynomolgus macaque |
Total |
|
China |
0 |
74 |
74 |
|
Mauritius |
0 |
1,284 |
1,284 |
|
Netherlands |
92 |
52 |
144 |
|
Vietnam |
0 |
428 |
428 |
|
Total |
92 |
1,838 |
1,930 |
2 March 2011
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to ensure that primates imported from Asia are not captured from the wild.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): Since 1995 Home Office policy has prohibited the use of wild-caught non-human primates in scientific procedures licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 except where exceptional and specific justification can be established.
The use in regulated procedures of non-human primates obtained from overseas sources is subject to controls intended to support the ban on the use of wild-caught animals. With regard to animals destined for the United Kingdom, the acquisition of each consignment of primates requires prior authorisation which is given only if the breeding centre meets specific qualifying standards of colony management. These include the operation of an effective breeding programme, an adequate system for maintaining individual lifetime records and, where applicable, a policy of reducing dependence on wild-caught animals for future breeding stock.
Information submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates includes copies of the individual lifetime records that prove that animals have been born in captivity.
With regard to primates imported for other purposes, all primates are listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which means that all international, commercial trade in them is strictly regulated. The objective of CITES is not to prohibit all trade in animals and plants, but to ensure that it is carried out in a sustainable way that ensures the long-term survival of all species.
Imports of primates are allowed only after a determination has been made by the United Kingdom's scientific advisers that the trade will not have a detrimental impact on the long-term survival of the species in the wild.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110302w0001.htm#11030261000171
1 March 2011
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to minimise and eventually eradicate the use of primates in animal experiments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The Government recognise that many people have a particular concern about the use of non-human primates. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 they, together with some other species, are given special protection and can be used only where animals of no other species are suitable.
Research using non-human primates is a small but currently vital part of work to protect and improve human lives. For instance, the United Kingdom uses small numbers of non-human primates for the development and testing of vaccines against some of the world's largest killers such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB, and the potential future treatment of degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The development of new drugs and medical and veterinary technologies is still dependent on the information and insights derived from the well designed, properly conducted and carefully regulated use of animals (including non-human primates) for testing and research.
Some advocate a "zero option" strategy, where the goal is to stop using non-human primates altogether as fast as possible. The majority of scientific opinion believes that it will take several decades to make the advances needed to overcome all need for non-human primates.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110301w0001.htm#11030162000410
9 December 2010
Caroline Lucas: What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Home Office on measures to ensure that primates that are brought into the UK for sale as pets are not caught in the wild and then diverted and used for research purposes in particular?
Jim Paice: I am very glad that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because I asked it of myself yesterday when I was going through the information. In reality, primates are not coming in from the wild. I understand that only one animal in the past decade is believed to have been wild-caught and then brought into this country. Of course, they are all covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species anyway, so there are restrictions in place. Anyone wishing to import a primate into this country has to have a licence, and there are very strict conditions. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady if she would like to know about them.
19 November 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-human primates imported into the UK and recorded as F1 generation were from Mauritius in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010.
Lynne Featherstone: From the information available we estimate that of the non-human primates imported into the United Kingdom during 2009 and 2010 for scientific research, 1,139 and 970 respectively were F1 generation from Mauritius.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she has plans to review the suitability of non-human primate companies in Mauritius that are designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research.
Lynne Featherstone: Overseas centres supplying non-human primates to the United Kingdom for the purposes of scientific research are appraised by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate initially when identified as potential new sources of primates by United Kingdom users seeking to acquire animals. Once deemed acceptable, the status of overseas centres is subject to periodic review, typically every two years.
The two Mauritian centres which have supplied animals to the United Kingdom in the past two years are next due for review by 31 January 2011 and 31 August 2011.
16 November 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 November 2010, Official Report, column 876W, if she will introduce a requirement to record whether primates imported into the UK for research are F1 or F2+ generation.
Lynne Featherstone: Our current requirements on records for non-human primates imported into the United Kingdom for scientific research are under review and I expect to receive advice and recommendations in due course. I will write advising of any change in current policy once a decision has been made.
12 November 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 November 2010, Official Report, column 877W, on animal experiments: primates, how many of the breeding centres that supply primates for use in scientific research in the UK have a policy in place to reduce their dependence on the use of wild-caught primates.
Lynne Featherstone: Of the two overseas breeding centres supplying animals to the United Kingdom during the past two years and using wild populations of non-human primates for breeding purposes, both have policies for reducing dependence on wild-caught animals for future breeding stock at least in relation to the animals likely to be bred for supply to the United Kingdom.
9 November 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of overseas companies designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research that use wild populations of non-human primates for breeding purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: Of the overseas breeding centres supplying animals to the UK during the past two years we understand that two use wild populations of non-human primates for breeding purposes.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies in Mauritius are designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research.
Lynne Featherstone: Of the overseas breeding centres supplying animals to the United Kingdom during the past two years two are located in Mauritius.
4 November 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas companies designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research wean infant primates from their mothers at six months or younger.
Lynne Featherstone: The Home Office has no jurisdiction or remit to designate or approve overseas breeding and supplying centres. The use of non-human primates from an overseas source in regulated procedures is authorised only when the centre in question has demonstrated that animals bred and supplied to licensees in the United Kingdom will have been weaned at more than six months of age except in rare cases where infants have been either abandoned or orphaned.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if her Department will consider implementing a ban on the import of (a) all primates for the purposes of scientific research, (b) the offspring of wild-caught primates and (c) primates from establishments that trap wild monkeys for breeding purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: I have no plans to do so. However European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 October 2010, which must be implemented in United Kingdom legislation from 1 January 2013, contains proposed time scales for a move towards the use of F2 non-human primates or animals sourced from self-sustaining colonies.
A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many and (b) what species of non-human primates imported for the purposes of scientific research were categorised as (i) captive-born (or F1 generation) and (ii) captive-bred (F2+ generation) in (A) 2009 and (B) 2010. [Official Report, 9 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 9MC.]
Lynne Featherstone: Although the information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, there is currently no requirement for the records to indicate whether animals are F1 or F2+. However, from the information available we estimate the respective totals to be as detailed in the following table.
|
Numbers of imported captive-born (or F1 generation) and captive-bred (F2+ generation) non-human primates |
||
|
F1 |
F2 |
|
|
2009 |
||
|
Common marmoset |
0 |
100 |
|
Rhesus macaque |
0 |
44 |
|
Cynomolgus macaque |
1,257 |
958 |
|
2010 (reported to date) |
||
|
Common marmoset |
0 |
0 |
|
Rhesus macaque |
0 |
40 |
|
Cynomolgus macaque |
970 |
545 |
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her Department's policy is on the importation to the UK for the purposes of scientific research of (a) the offspring of wild-caught primates and (b) non-human primates from establishments that trap wild monkeys for breeding purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: Within current policy the use of non-human primates from an overseas source in regulated procedures is authorised only when the centre in question has demonstrated that it provides appropriate standards of housing and care for animals likely to be bred and supplied to licensees in the United Kingdom. Where applicable, the breeding centre should also have a policy of reducing dependence on wild-caught animals for future breeding stock at least in relation to the animals likely to be bred and supplied to the UK. The number of wild-caught animals introduced into the colony for breeding should be in accordance with restrictions imposed by the relevant national authority. Where the breeding centre is capturing wild or feral primates it should have a clearly defined and effective process for ensuring that any person trapping primates is adequately trained and supervised in humane methods of capture.
11 March 2010
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department takes steps to ensure that monkeys imported for scientific research from (a) China and (b) Vietnam have been bred in that country and not re-exported from a third country.
Meg Hillier: Appraisal of the breeding centres in China and Vietnam currently regarded as acceptable by the Home Office has not revealed any evidence that animals consigned to the United Kingdom have been bred other than at the Chinese or Vietnamese centre in question.
Following each shipment of non-human primates to the United Kingdom, the Inspectorate has access to the full-lifetime records of the individual animals to be used under project licence authority including details of their origin. Second and subsequent Inspectorate visits to overseas sources allow supplementary checks to be made of the reliability of the records provided to the United Kingdom users.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies in (a) China and (b) Vietnam are designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research.
Meg Hillier: The Home Office has no authority to designate primate breeders or suppliers outside Great Britain. However, the use of any non-human primate from an overseas source under the authority of a project licence issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires prior approval which is given only if the conditions at the supplying centre, and at the breeding centre where the animals originate, if different, are acceptable to the Home Office at the time of the supply. There are three centres in China currently considered acceptable to provide non-human primates to UK designated user establishments and one in Vietnam.
1 June 2009
Mike 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.
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 |
14 May 2009
Mike 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.
Shahid Malik: We received representations from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on the 24 November 2008 and responded on 16 December 2008. We have received no requests from establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to acquire animals from the centre or to accept it as a source of non-human primates. Should we receive such a request, we would need to be satisfied that conditions at the centre were acceptable before giving approval.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations she has received on breeding of long-tailed macaques in Indonesia for animal research in the UK; and what her Department’s policy on the matter is.
Shahid Malik: We have received no formal representations relating to the breeding of long-tailed macaques in Indonesia for animal research in the UK. The acquisition of non-human primates from overseas sources for use in procedures authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires prior approval which is only given if the conditions at the breeding centre are acceptable to the Home Office at the time. Any request to acquire non-human primates from Indonesia would have to satisfy these requirements.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has (a) approved and (b) inspected primate supply centres in Indonesia as overseas primate supply and breeding facilities to export primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research in the last 12 months.
Shahid Malik: No.
20 April 2009
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment she has made of (a) the conditions in which monkeys are held at Nafovanny, Long Thanh, Vietnam and (b) the appropriateness of allowing the importation of monkeys from that facility under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Shahid Malik: In July 2008, a review of the Nafovanny Centre against the published qualifying criteria confirmed the centre as category A (no issues or only minor issues noted). Nafovanny's suitability was reviewed again in February 2009 in the light of a recent campaign report, in which allegations were made about the use and condition of some small cages. As a result, the centre remains acceptable as a source of non-human primates, but has been reassigned as category B (issues identified that require further monitoring by the Inspectorate and/or action by the breeding centre). Accordingly, a visit by the Home Office Inspectorate to Nafovanny has been arranged and is scheduled to be completed before the end of May 2009. Since the date of the last assessment there have been no requests from users to acquire animals from Nafovanny.
27 March 2009
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the cost of the use in (a) pharmaceutical research and (b) other research areas of cynomolgus macaques born of captive bred parents.
Shahid Malik: No estimates have yet been made of the cost of using cynomolgus macaques born of captive bred parents for research purposes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in either pharmaceutical research or other research areas.
We will consider these costs in assessing the impact of the European Commission's proposal for a draft directive for the protection of animals used in scientific procedures to replace Directive 86/609/EEC published in November 2008. We will publish the impact assessment when we consult formally on the draft directive.
10 March 2009
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the cost of using (a) an F1 generation and (b) an F2 generation non-human primate bred for research purposes in research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and on what basis her estimate is calculated.
Meg Hillier: No estimates have yet been made of the cost of using F1 and F2 generation non-human primates bred for research purposes in research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
We will consider these costs in preparing a partial impact assessment in respect of the European Commission’s proposal for a draft directive for the protection of animals used in scientific procedures to replace Directive 86/609/EEC. We will publish the impact assessment when we consult formally on the draft directive.
12 January 2009
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has (a) approved and (b) inspected a breeding centre operated by Vanny Bio-Research at Prek Eng in Cambodia as an overseas primate supply and breeding facility to export primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research; and 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.
Meg Hillier: The Home Office has no remit to approve or accredit overseas primate breeding centres. However, the use of any non-human primate under the authority of project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 from an overseas source requires prior approval which is given only if the conditions at the breeding centre are acceptable to the Home Office at that time. The Home Office has not visited any primate supply and breeding facility in Cambodia.
We have received no formal representations on breeding of long-tailed macaques for research in Cambodia, with particular reference to the Vanny Bio-Research Centre. In my reply to your question of 17 December 2008, Official Report, column 857W, I advised you that we had previously considered the suitability of a laboratory primate breeding centre in Cambodia, and are reviewing its potential suitability in the light of additional documentation recently received. No approval for requests for the import of non-human primates will be considered until the centre in Cambodia has been visited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.
17 December 2008
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has (a) inspected and (b) approved an overseas primate supply or breeding facility in Cambodia for the export of primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research; and if she will make a statement.
Meg Hillier: We have previously considered the suitability of a laboratory primate breeding centre in Cambodia, and are reviewing its potential suitability in the light of additional documentation recently received. However, to date we have not received any requests from UK project licence holders to authorise the use of non-human primates acquired from breeding centres in Cambodia. No approval for such requests will be considered until the centre has been visited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will extend the ban on the importation of wild-caught primates to include primates imported for the purposes of scientific research from countries where there is an indigenous population of that species.
Meg Hillier: We have no plans to do so. The use under project licence authority of any non-human primate originating from an overseas source requires the express and prior approval of the Secretary of State which is given only if the conditions at the breeding centre are acceptable to the Home Office at that time. The Home Office appraisal of overseas primate breeding centres is an ongoing process taking account of additional relevant information as it becomes available, whether that be from the breeding centre itself, from users or other stakeholders. Part of this appraisal is to ensure, as far as is practical, from the records maintained, that the non-human primates are not wild caught.
16 December 2008
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many CITES import permits his Department has issued for long-tailed macaques originating from Cambodia in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
Huw Irranca-Davies: In the last three years the UK CITES Management Authority has not issued any permits for the importation of live long tailed macaques from Cambodia.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if his Department will suspend the issue of import permits for long-tailed macaques originating from Cambodia under Article 4(2) of EC Regulation 338/97.
Huw Irranca-Davies: If the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) decides that it is appropriate to suspend trade, the decision will be implemented in the EU under Article 4.2 of Council Regulation 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein.
We are not aware of plans to do this and the EU’s Scientific Review Group (SRG) is not separately considering suspending trade in this species as no concerns over trade have been raised. The UK has no plans to take unilateral action and if any concerns were brought to our attention we would first raise them through the SRG to ensure coordinated action across the single market.
Freedom of Information
1 March 2011
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to review Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): We are planning to include a review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in due course as part of a public consultation on the transposition of European Directive 210/63/EU on the protection of animals used in scientific research.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110301w0001.htm#11030162000410
3 March 2010
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has yet to be repealed.
Meg Hillier [holding answer 1 March 2010]: We have no plans to review section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 before we know the outcome of European Union Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, which is currently being debated in the European Union.
We have never given a commitment to repeal section 24, only to review it.
7 July 2009
Mike 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.
Alan Campbell: We have no plans to review the provisions of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the so-called ‘confidentiality clause’, before the outcome of the revision of European Union directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is known.
Wickham Laboratory
20 December 2010
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Written Ministerial Statement of 30 November 2010, Official Report, columns 68-69WS, on the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (Wickham Laboratories), when she plans to determine whether proceedings for infringement of conditions of project licences are to be brought.
Lynne Featherstone: The Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate report of a review of compliance at Wickham Laboratories published on 30 November 2010, Official Report, columns 68-9WS, identified a number of potential breaches of licence and certificate conditions. I have already made the decision to initiate infringement proceedings. The Home Office does not comment on the detail of infringement actions under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the merits of reviewing the certificate of designation issued to Wickham Laboratories.
Lynne Featherstone: In the light of the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate report of a review of compliance at Wickham Laboratories published on 30 November 2010, Official Report, columns 68-9WS, the compliance of the holder of the certificate of designation, for Wickham Laboratories, with the authorities of the certificate of designation is under review. The Home Office does not disclose the details of any infringement proceedings.
19 November 2010
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 23 June 2010, Official Report, column 232W, on Wickham Research Laboratories: animal experiments, when she expects to be in a position to (a) consider the findings of the review and (b) publish the review.
Lynne Featherstone: I have received the Home Office Inspectorate's review report and I am considering its findings. I expect to announce the outcome of the review and publish the report shortly.
10 June 2010
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects to publish the results of the review of animal testing at Wickham Laboratories; and for what reasons the expected publication timetable has not been met.
Lynne Featherstone: I expect to receive the report of the review shortly and will publish the results when I have considered its findings.
The review timetable has been extended to ensure that input from the independent members of the review team could be taken fully into account.
9 December 2009
Mark 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
2 December 2009
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.
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.
1 December 2009
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.
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.
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".
26 November 2009
Adrian 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
12 November 2009
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.
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.
11 November 2009
Adrian 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
Botox
9 December 2010
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will review the continued use of mice for the potency testing of botulism under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the light of the availability of a validated alternative which does not involve the use of animals; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: We continue to authorise the use animals for the potency testing of botulinum toxin products as international and United Kingdom regulations relating to the safety and efficacy of medicines require that they are tested for potency. This form of testing is kept under regular review and only licensed where there is no alternative.
The Home Office currently license the use of animals for the testing of material produced in the United Kingdom for medicinal use because, at present, non-animal alternatives have yet to be validated to the standard required for use by the relevant laboratories. There is a wide variation in batch-to-batch potency which requires that each batch should be checked and each different medicine requires a unique development, validation and regulatory acceptance for any proposed alternative test. There is no agreed measurable unit of potency for botulinum toxin, it can only be assessed as a function of its biological effect on a living organism.
We believe that our licensing is consistent with the requirement of section 5(5)(a) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that licence authorities may only be granted where we are satisfied that the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence cannot be achieved satisfactorily by any other reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of animals.
The Home Office and all others, including the laboratories and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, concerned with conducting and regulating such testing are committed to using alternatives to animals as soon as it becomes practicable to do so.
19 November 2010
Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulated procedures were carried out on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to test the potency of botulinum toxin in 2009.
Lynne Featherstone: Information is not available on how many regulated procedures were carried out on animals in 2009 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to test the potency of botulinum toxin. Figures for numbers of procedures involving pharmaceutical safety/efficacy testing are included in table 9 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2009". It is not possible from the format of the data returns collected for statistical purposes to identify the number of procedures used in testing a particular substance or product.
The annual publication "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2009" was published on 27 July 2010, and is available via the Library of the House and on the Department's website at:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/scientific1.html
Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategy her Department plans to adopt to reduce the number of animals used in experiments.
Lynne Featherstone: We are currently developing a strategy to deliver the coalition commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research and will announce our plans in due course. We will be looking for genuine reductions which improve animal welfare.
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the practice of using death as an experimental end point in relation to the use of mice for the potency testing of botulinum toxin in projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Lynne Featherstone: The Home Office does not authorise death as the experimental endpoint in the botulinum toxin potency assay. The authorised humane endpoint is appropriate observation and intervention by use of humane euthanasia to limit animal suffering.
5 July 2010
Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued for medicines with botulinum toxin type A as the active ingredient in the last three years for which figures are available; and how many such prescriptions were issued (a) by NHS practitioners, (b) privately, (c) under a medicinal product licence by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and (d) for other indications.
Simon Burns: Information on private prescribing, the number of prescriptions issued for a medicine, or the indication for which it is prescribed, is not collected centrally.
Information on the number of botulinum toxin type A prescription items dispensed in the community in England is shown in the table.
|
Botulinum toxin type A prescription items |
|
|
Prescription items(1)(thousand) |
|
|
2007 |
0.2 |
|
2008 |
0.2 |
|
2009 |
0.3 |
|
(1)Excludes use in hospitals. |
|
1 December 2009
Mark 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.
Mike O’Brien [holding answer 30 November 2009]: This information is not collected centrally.
Mark 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.
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.
11 Nov 2009
Adrian 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.
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.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091111/text/91111w0013.htm
Home Office Policy
27 July 2010
Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisations (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department (i) have met and (ii) plan to meet to discuss policy and practice on scientific procedures on animals.
Lynne Featherstone: I have already met with representatives from the UK Bioscience sector coalition and the chair of the Animal Procedures Committee. I have meetings scheduled with representatives from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and Animal Defenders International and a date is to be arranged to meet with representatives from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
5 July 2010
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to bring forward proposals to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.
Lynne Featherstone: The Government are committed to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. I am currently considering how this can best be achieved. I am not yet in a position to confirm when measures will be introduced.
Licensing/Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
19 May 2011
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make it her policy to withhold any certificate of designation for the proposed Marshall Biosciences beagle breeding factory at Grimston, East Yorkshire for the purposes of reducing the use of animals in painful laboratory experiments; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: Under Section 7 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, places where animals specified in schedule 2 to the Act are bred for use in regulated procedures, or are kept for supply for use in such procedures or to other designated sources, must be designated as breeding and/or supplying establishments. Applications for designation are considered on a case by case basis according to their merits. It is not Home Office policy to comment on individual applications.
17 January 2011
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the consequences of replacing the need for a personal licence to carry out experiments on animals with a requirement for registration.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The new European Union Directive 2010/63/EU requires authorisation (or by other means) of those who currently work in the UK under personal licences.
We are weighing up the implications of the various requirements of the directive with a view to seeking views in the public consultation. We plan to reach firm decisions on the way forward before the Summer Recess after considering the responses.
We are considering two options in the impact assessment (which will form part of the consultation)-"copy out" in which we would transpose the minimum requirements of the directive (some of which are lower than current United Kingdom requirements); and a second option in which we would retain current United Kingdom requirements where they are higher. We are not yet at a point where we can say which option we favour. The United Kingdom's current requirements for personal licences are more detailed than required by the directive and a decision will need to be taken in due course.
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to change the ethical review process for animal experiments.
Baroness Neville-Jones: We are weighing up the implications of the various requirements of the directive with a view to seeking views in the public consultation. We plan to reach firm decisions on the way forward before the Summer Recess after considering the responses.
We are considering two options in the impact assessment (which will form part of the consultation)-"copy out" in which we would transpose the minimum requirements of the directive (some of which are lower than current United Kingdom requirements); and a second option in which we would retain current United Kingdom requirements where they are higher. We are not yet at a point where we can say which option we favour.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110117w0001.htm#1101172000173
14 December 2009
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many procedures were approved under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008.
Meg Hillier: Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, projects are authorised containing protocols comprising one or more regulated procedures. No records are kept of the number of protocols or procedures authorised. However, in 2007 and 2008, there were 3,375 and 2,652 project licences in force at 31 December, respectively.
11 November 2009
Adrian 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
Adrian 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.
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.
27 March 2009
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will publish on her Department's website an abstract relating to each project licence granted under the Animals Act 1986 before 2005.
Shahid Malik: We have no plans to do so. We believe that it is a better use of resources to focus our energies on ensuring that as many abstracts are posted for newly granted licences as possible. Abstracts are provided voluntarily by licensees and there are currently over 1,750 posted on the Home Office website.
Inspections
18 March 2011
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate employed in (a) 2008, (b) 2009 and (c) 2010; and how many she expects it to employ in (i) 2011 and (ii) 2012.
Lynne Featherstone: The number of individual Animal Scientific Procedures Inspectors employed to contribute to the inspection process in each of the following years was:
|
Number |
|
|
2008 |
28 |
|
2009 |
27 |
|
2010 |
27 |
I am not in a position to predict figures for the future number of inspectors. However, we are committed to continue to match resources to deliver the appropriate outcomes of the inspection process.
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspections the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate made in (a) 2008, (b) 2009 and (c) 2010; and how many she expects it to make in (i) 2011 and (ii) 2012.
Lynne Featherstone: The following number of visits to places where scientific work on animals was conducted was made by the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectors.
|
Visits |
|
|
2008 |
2,088 |
|
2009 |
1,994 |
|
2010 |
1,984 |
I am not in a position to estimate future numbers of inspections by the Home Office inspectors. The inspectorate will continue to take a risk-based approach to the planning and execution of the inspection programme.
European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is to be implemented in United Kingdom legislation on 1 January 2013. A detailed assessment of the impact of its provisions including those relating to inspections is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
We are weighing up the implications of the various requirements of the directive with a view to seeking views in the public consultation. We plan to reach firm decisions on the way forward before the summer recess after considering the responses on this and other issues.
17 January 2011
Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to reduce the number of Home Office Inspectors reviewing animal experiments.
Baroness Neville-Jones: European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is to be implemented in United Kingdom legislation in January 2013. A detailed assessment of the impact of its provisions including those relating to inspections is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
We are weighing up the implications of the various requirements of the directive with a view to seeking views in the public consultation. We plan to reach firm decisions on the way forward before the Summer Recess after considering the responses on this and other issues.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110117w0001.htm#1101172000173
1 November 2010
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has made an estimate of the likely change in the number of inspections of designated establishments carried out by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate in each of the next three years; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: I am not in a position to estimate the number of inspections of designated establishments to be carried out by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate in each of the next three years.
The inspectorate plays a key role in the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Visits by inspectors to designated establishments, many of which are unannounced, are important to check for compliance with the Act. An additional important role is to advise those working under the Act and encourage best practice with respect to the 3Rs-replacement, refinement and reduction. The inspectorate implements a risk-based approach to inspection and I expect this to continue. The new European Union directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, to be implemented in United Kingdom legislation in January 2013, also requires a risk-based approach to inspections. A detailed assessment of the impact of its provisions, including those relating to inspections, is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors are in post in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate; what the average length of service of those inspectors is; and how many inspectors have left the Inspectorate in each of the last seven years.
Lynne Featherstone: At 25 October 2010 there were 25 Inspectors in post in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate with an average length of service in the Home Office of between five years and 10 years. Both records of length of service and the number of inspectors who have left the Inspectorate in each of the last seven years, which follow, are recorded in bands that comply with the Office of National Statistics guidelines.
2009: Less than five
2008: Less than five
2007: None
2006: Less than five
2005: Less than five
2004: Less than five
2003: Between five and 10
26 October 2010
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the implications of the implementation on the European Directive on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Procedures for the (a) role and (b) future funding of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.
Lynne Featherstone: The Council of the European Union adopted a revised text as its first reading position in June 2010. The European Parliament approved the Council's first reading position on 8 September 2010. This brought negotiation of the new European Union directive to an end. The final text will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly and will enter into force 20 days later. Member states will have two years to transpose its provisions into national legislation which must be implemented from 1 January 2013.
I am not yet in a position to comment on the implications of the new directive for the future role and funding of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
24 March 2010
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to reduce the frequency of inspections carried out under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Meg Hillier: There are no plans to reduce the frequency of inspections carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In line with the Government's principles for Better Regulation, inspections are performed with a frequency based upon a risk assessment of each designated establishment. The risks are regularly reviewed by the local inspector in the light of fresh information such that the frequency of inspections to each establishment may be altered at any time to match the perceived risk. Overall, it is not expected that this will result in a significant change in the total number of inspections carried out by an inspector over the course of a year.
Alternatives
18 May 2011
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps she is taking to ensure that all available non-animal methods in scientific research are implemented.
Lynne Featherstone: Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office can only license the use of animals for scientific purposes where there is no non-animal alternative, and then only when both the number of animals to be used and any expected suffering is minimised. This reflects the principles of the 3Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction of the number of animals used and their replacement with other methods wherever possible.
To ensure that no relevant replacement, reduction or refinement measure has been overlooked, all applications are considered by the local ethical review processes in place in all user establishments designated under the 1986 Act. They are also assessed in detail by Home Office Inspectors, who are all either medical or veterinary graduates.
The Government also encourages the development and use of alternatives and improvements in laboratory animal welfare through its support for the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and European and international 3Rs initiatives.
The coalition agreement includes a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. We are working on a strategy to deliver this commitment and I expect to make an announcement on this shortly.
Data-sharing
10 February 2011
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress her Department has made in encouraging data-sharing between companies engaged in animal testing.
Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 9 February 2011]: The Government support the work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) which promotes the replacement, reduction and refinement of animals (the 3Rs) in research and testing. Over the last six years, the NC3Rs has developed a model that enables pharmaceutical and chemical companies and contract research organisations that engage in animal testing to share data and expertise. An example of the success of this approach is the removal from the international regulatory guidelines of single dose acute toxicity testing for pharmaceuticals. In 2010, the NC3Rs has continued to facilitate this cooperation by co-ordinating data sharing between 23 companies in a wide range of areas related to the development of new medicines. Further information on these activities is published on the NC3Rs website.
National Centre for 3Rs
16 November 2010
Roger Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effects of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review on (a) her Department's funding of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research and (b) the official scrutiny of laboratories licensed to use animals for research purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: I am not yet in a position to assess the effects of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review on Home Office funding of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research and the official scrutiny of laboratories licensed to use animals for research purposes.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make decisions on the delivery of budgets as part of the departmental business plan. No decisions have yet been taken over staffing.
EU Directive 2010/63/EU
4 May 2011
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make representations to the European Commission to bring forward proposals for the review of European Directive 2010/63/EU to include binding targets for the replacement of animals in scientific research.
Lynne Featherstone: Article 58 of European Directive 2010/63/EU requires the European Commission to review the Directive by 10 November 2017 taking into account advancements in the development of alternative methods not entailing the use of animals, in particular of non-human primates, and to propose amendments, where appropriate.
The United Kingdom contribution to the review will be considered at the appropriate time when consulted by the Commission.
10 February 2011
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2011, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA2, on animal experimentation, which minimum requirements of the new EU Directive 2010/63/EU on animal experimentation are lower than current UK requirements; in what ways such requirements are lower than current UK requirements; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: Many of the provisions of Directive 210/63/EU are similar to current United Kingdom requirements; some are new and go further; and a few are potentially less stringent. For example, unlike the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the directive does not provide special protection for cats, dogs and equids. In addition, some of the mandatory standards of care and accommodation set out in Annex III to the directive are lower such as cage height for rats, hamsters and gerbils; minimum floor areas for sheep, goats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, pigs, mini-pigs and equids. The directive also excludes from protection foetal forms of birds and reptiles and protects foetal forms of mammals from the last third of gestation rather than the halfway point. The required membership and functions of the proposed animal welfare bodies in establishments are also less extensive in the directive than the current requirement for local ethical processes in the United Kingdom. This is not a full and final list of differences and further details will be included in the impact assessment currently in preparation which will be published in due course.
17 November 2010
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will take steps to ensure standards of animal welfare are maintained following implementation of the European Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: I am satisfied that European Directive 2010/63/EU provides a sound and practical framework for the regulation of animal experimentation and testing in Europe and will allow the United Kingdom to maintain its traditionally high standards of welfare and animal protection. At the same time it avoids unnecessary bureaucracy and may offer opportunities to reduce the current regulatory burden in some areas without harming animal welfare.
26 October 2010
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department is taking to ensure that personnel working with animals in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are trained and competent following the transposition into domestic law of the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; and if she will make a statement.
Lynne Featherstone: The Council of the European Union adopted a revised text as its first reading position in June 2010. The European Parliament approved the Council's first reading position on 8 September 2010. This brought negotiation of the new European Union directive to an end. The final text will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly and will enter into force 20 days later. Member states will have two years to transpose its provisions into national legislation which must be implemented from 1 January 2013.
I am not yet in a position to comment on the arrangements for the training and competence of personnel working with animals in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 following the transposition of the EU directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes into domestic law. A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effects on the level of protection given to pre-hatch birds used in experimental procedures the transposition into domestic law of the EU directive on the protection of animals used in scientific procedures will have.
Lynne Featherstone: The Council of the European Union adopted a revised text as its first reading position in June 2010. The European Parliament approved the Council's first reading position on 8 September 2010. This brought negotiation of the new European Union directive to an end. The final text will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly and will enter into force 20 days later. Member states will have two years to transpose its provisions into national legislation which must be implemented from 1 January 2013.
I am not yet in a position to comment whether there will be any changes to the protection given to pre-hatch birds used in experimental procedures resulting from the transposition of the EU directive on the protection of animals used in scientific procedures into United Kingdom legislation. A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she intends to transpose into domestic law the derogation within the EU directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes allowing the use of procedures involving severe pain, suffering or distress to animals that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated.
Lynne Featherstone: The Council of the European Union adopted a revised text as its first reading position in June 2010. The European Parliament approved the Council's first reading position on 8 September 2010. This brought negotiation of the new European Union directive to an end. The final text will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly and will enter into force 20 days later. Member states will have two years to transpose its provisions into national legislation which must be implemented from 1 January 2013.
I am not yet in a position to comment on the transposition into domestic law of the derogation within the EU directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes allowing the use of procedures involving severe pain, suffering or distress to animals that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated. A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which areas she plans to opt to maintain the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for safeguarding animal welfare where they are more restrictive than those that will be required within the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
Lynne Featherstone: The Council of the European Union adopted a revised text as its first reading position in June 2010. The European Parliament approved the Council's first reading position on 8 September 2010. This brought negotiation of the new European Union directive to an end. The final text will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly and will enter into force 20 days later. Member states will have two years to transpose its provisions into national legislation which must be implemented from 1 January 2013.
I am not yet in a position to comment on plans to maintain the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for safeguarding animal welfare where they are stricter than those that will be required within the EU directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. A detailed assessment of the provisions of the new directive is under way and will in due course be included in a public consultation on options for transposition.
24 March 2010
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his Department's response to its consultation on EU proposals for a new Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes to be published.
Meg Hillier: We expect the response to the consultation on the proposals for the revision of EC Directive 86/609 to be published by early April 2010.
12 March 2010
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the review process for the EU Animal Experimentation Directive; what assessment he has made of the implications of that review for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.
Meg Hillier: In November 2008 the European Commission published its proposal for a new directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes to replace EU Directive 86/609/EEC. The European Parliament adopted its first reading report on the Commission's proposal in May 2009. The Council of Ministers has not yet adopted an agreed position. However, discussions between the Swedish presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament completed in December 2009 made significant progress towards agreement of a common compromise text.
The only provisions remaining to be agreed relate to the arrangements for delegated and implementing acts introduced by articles 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty, the operational details of which are still being negotiated.
Once these provisions are agreed, the way should then be clear for the new Directive to be adopted. Our current expectation is that this will be in the first half of 2010 and that the final implementation date for the measures set out in the new directive, after transposition into UK law, will be 1 January 2013.
We believe the compromise text provides a sound basis for the future regulation of animal research in Europe. The text is more flexible and less prescriptive than the Commission's initial proposal and, overall, provides a regulatory framework which, we believe is balanced and will allow the United Kingdom to maintain high standards of welfare and animal protection after transposition and implementation without the imposition of unnecessary bureaucracy.
10 March 2009
Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have met to discuss the proposed revision to European Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for research or other scientific purposes in the last 12 months.
Meg Hillier: The European Commission proposal for a draft directive for the protection of animals used in scientific procedures to replace directive 86/609/EEC was published in November 2008. I have met with the Animal Procedures Committee, the All Party Parliamentary FRAME Group and the BioIndustry Association to discuss aspects of the draft directive, and participated in a European Scrutiny Committee debate on the same issue. I am also due to meet representatives from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) later this week (12 March).
I have also received written representations about the draft directive and Home Office officials have met with a wide and representative cross-section of relevant stakeholder groups to discuss its provisions. The Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers have not been involved in any of these discussions.
Severe pain
3 May 2011
Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her policy is on the establishment of limits on the pain which laboratory animals are permitted to experience for experimental purposes in laboratories.
Lynne Featherstone: The criteria used to assign severity limits to regulated procedures are set out in paragraphs 5.40 to 5.42 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC321). Copies of the Guidance have been placed in the House Library.
26 October 2010
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many procedures have been licensed which were deemed likely to cause severe pain or distress to animals that could not be alleviated in each of the last three years.
Lynne Featherstone: At no time have procedures been licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which were deemed likely to cause severe pain or distress to animals that cannot be alleviated. This is not permissible under the 1986 Act.
REACH
27 January 2010
Mike 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.
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.
Animal experiments in Wales
14 October 2010
Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were carried out in Wales in 2009;
(2) how many procedures carried out on animals in Wales under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involved (a) New World primates and (b) Old World primates in 2009; and what the primary purpose of those procedures were;
(3) what the (a) primary purpose and (b) field of research was of each procedure carried out on animals in Wales under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving (i) fish, (ii) pigs and (iii) genetically modified animals in 2009; and for what reason there was an increase in the number of procedures carried out on (A) fish, (B) pigs and (C) genetically-modified animals in Wales in 2009 compared to the previous year;
(4) what proportion of procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 carried out in Wales were conducted without anaesthesia in 2009;
(5) 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 2009;
(6) how many individual animals were used in procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales in 2009;
(7) how many regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 conducted in Wales 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 in 2009;
(8) what proportion of regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 conducted in Wales were carried out for (a) fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology and (b) toxicity tests or other safety and efficacy evaluation in 2009;
(9) what proportion of regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 conducted in Wales were performed in (a) public health laboratories, (b) universities and medical schools, (c) NHS hospitals, (d) Government departments, (e) other public bodies, (f) non-profit making organisations and (g) commercial organisations in 2009;
(10) 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 conducted in Wales in 2009.
Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend tabled 10 questions regarding the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals for Wales in 2009. While figures for Great Britain are published annually, the latest being on 27 July 2010, it would take significant work to run the systems specifically to obtain data for Wales and then to check that none of the data was disclosive or breached any confidentiality guarantees given to respondents. For this reason, I will write to my hon. Friend separately when we have had sufficient time to compile and check the information you requested. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
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 2009; and how many resulted in a prosecution.
Lynne Featherstone: There were no recorded infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at designated establishments in Wales during 2009.
Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites in Wales were designated as a (a) supplying, (b) breeding and (c) scientific procedure establishment under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at the end of 2009.
Lynne Featherstone: As at 31 December 2009 in Wales there were one supplying, two breeding and eight user establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. An establishment can be a user, breeder and supplier.
Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences for work in Wales were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2009; and how many such licences were in force at the end of 2009.
Lynne Featherstone: During 2009, 13 project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales. On 31 December 2009 there were 76 project licences in force in Wales.
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 and in force in Wales at the end of 2009 were in the (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified severity banding.
Lynne Featherstone: During 2009, in Wales, 59% of the project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were in the mild severity banding, 41% in moderate, there were none in substantial or unclassified.
5 January 2010
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.
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.
16 December 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Meg Hillier: During 2008, in Wales, there were 48,507 animals used in scientific procedures on living animals started under the 1986 Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15 December 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
(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;
(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.
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.
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.
Meg Hillier: There were no scientific procedures on living animals started under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Wales in 2008 using primates.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091215/text/91215w0034.htm#0912167000060
Ministry of Defence experiments
14 September 2010
Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to reduce the number of animals used in experiments by his Department.
Peter Luff: The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) at Porton Down undertakes the animal research conducted within the Ministry of Defence. Part of the remit of Dstl Porton Down is to provide safe effective countermeasures for the UK and its armed forces and to develop medical and surgical techniques to enhance the treatment of battlefield casualties and save lives.
The research involving the use of animals is only one small aspect of a much wider research programme and animal studies are only ever undertaken if there is no viable alternative. Dstl Porton Down operates a continuous policy in accordance with the principles of the 3 R's (replacement, reduction and refinement) and has an active programme to increase the implementation of the 3 R's by exploring the use of non-living models in order to reduce the requirement for animal experimentation. Accordingly, tissue and cell cultures, physical or computer-based modelling, are used wherever possible and commensurate with good practice. Dstl continues to actively develop and further investigate the use of non-living models to reduce the requirement for animal studies. However, where these alternatives are considered inadequate as a means of predicting the overall human response, experiments on animals will continue to be necessary.
8 September 2010
Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department ensures that the views of independent, external experts in ethics and animal welfare are considered under the local ethical review process within his Department's establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Peter Luff: Before any research work involving animals is undertaken, it is essential to establish that the use of animals is justified ethically as well as scientifically. Consequently, an ethical review is mandatory under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 before the Home Office will grant a licence for research involving animals. The Home Office also recommends that the ethical review process should include lay members who are independent of the work.
To meet these requirements the DSTL ethical review process is conducted through meetings that are open to all members of DSTL staff working at the Porton Down site and has an independent chair. The meetings start with the licence holder presenting the work proposed and answering any questions. This is followed by a general discussion of the ethical issues, including the overall welfare of the animals, surrounding the work. The aim of the meeting is to arrive at a consensus as to whether it is reasonable ethically to carry out the work under discussion.
The Home Office independent Animal Procedures Committee (APC) is responsible for monitoring compliance with animal welfare regulations. The MOD is confident that through the Home Office Inspectorate and the APC, the issues of animal welfare will be seriously considered and compliance with all extant regulations ensured.
Dstl Porton Down operates in accordance with the principles of the three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and has an active programme to increase the implementation of the three Rs by exploring the use of non-living models in order to reduce the requirement for animal experimentation.
Tissue and cell cultures, and physical or computer based modelling are used wherever it is possible and commensurate with good practice. However, where these alternatives are considered inadequate as a means of predicting human response, experiments on animals may be necessary.
29 March 2010
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budgetary provision his Department has made in 2010-11 for the conducting, directly or otherwise, of scientific procedures on animals; and how much was spent on this in 2009-10.
Quentin Davies: The Ministry of Defence funds an overarching scientific research programme which includes specific aspects which incorporate projects that require studies involving the use of animals. These are undertaken at DSTL Porton Down.
The DSTL accounting system does not differentiate the proportion of the budget that is spent solely on animal studies.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals of each species were used in scientific procedures (a) commissioned directly by his Department and (b) otherwise undertaken pursuant to decisions taken by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available.
Quentin Davies: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 March 2010, Official Report, columns 167-68W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
24 March 2010
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures as a result of a decision by his Department.
Quentin Davies: The Ministry of Defence has always taken the issue of animal health and welfare seriously and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) complies fully with all of the UK legislative requirements.
All Dstl staff who wish to work with animals are required to attend internal Dstl courses prior to their application for a personal licence. Following the successful completion of the required internal and legislative training, staff continue to undertake on the job training; individual training records are maintained to ensure required competence for procedures.
In order to maintain high welfare standards and share best practice Dstl staff are encouraged to visit other facilities and attend appropriate conferences e.g. meetings of the Institute of Animal Technologists, the Laboratory Animal Science Association and the Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association.
Information gathered is then shared within Dstl via dedicated internal forums.
23 March 2010
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals of each species involved in procedures died as a result of those procedures at (a) Porton Down and (b) other establishments for which he is responsible in each of the last five years.
Quentin Davies: The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) returns the numbers of procedures undertaken involving animals at DSTL Porton Down to the Home Office on an annual basis, the numbers of procedures returned for last five years are detailed in the following table. This is the only designated defence establishment for such procedures.
|
Numbers of DSTL procedures returned to the Home Office |
|||||||||
|
Guinea Pig |
Ferret |
Mouse |
Pig |
Rabbit |
Rat |
Sheep |
Non-human primate |
Total |
|
|
2005 |
661 |
60 |
20,016 |
127 |
3 |
195 |
2 |
54 |
21,118 |
|
2006 |
545 |
0 |
15,986 |
123 |
0 |
335 |
4 |
52 |
17,045 |
|
2007 |
647 |
0 |
17,095 |
74 |
5 |
359 |
2 |
75 |
18,257 |
|
2008 |
254 |
0 |
10,404 |
113 |
2 |
549 |
0 |
55 |
11,380 |
|
2009 |
190 |
0 |
7,698 |
96 |
30 |
5 |
0 |
149 |
8,168 |
A very large proportion, approximately 95 per cent, of the total number of animals involved in the procedures either died during the procedure, or were humanely culled at the end of the procedures, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986:
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xa.htm
Sections 3D, 14 (3) and 15 (2) detail the requirement for specific approval to keep animals alive after the completion of any regulated procedure.
A small number of animals are approved for re-use in further procedures. An example of re-use was the herd of goats retained at Alverstoke for use in the hyperbaric research programme supporting the Ministry of Defence's Submarine Escape Rescue and Abandonment System. This programme ceased in November 2006, as formally announced in a written ministerial statement on 6 February 2008, Official Report, column 70WS.
Birds
20 Jan 2010
Mike 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.
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.
Dogs
26 July 2010
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when each of the overseas establishments approved by her to export dogs for use in scientific procedures to the UK was last inspected by inspectors from the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate; how frequently such inspections occur; and what arrangements her Department makes with third parties for the inspection of such establishments;
(2) how many overseas supplying establishments are approved to export dogs to the UK for use in scientific procedures; and in which country each is based.
Lynne Featherstone: The Home Office has no authority to approve suppliers of dogs for use in scientific procedures located outside the United Kingdom. If suitable dogs are not available from a designated breeding establishment in the UK an application can be made to acquire them from overseas breeding sources. Assurances are sought from the project licence holder on the standards of husbandry and care at the overseas breeding establishment and permission to acquire is given on a case by case basis.
From the information available, since 2004-05, dogs have been sourced from European breeding centres in Italy, France, Spain, and Holland and from the United States. Centres in the United States, France and Italy have been visited in the past by members of the Inspectorate to confirm that information provided to the Home Office was accurate and that husbandry and care practices were satisfactory.
Shellfish Testing
10 May 2011
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether animals have been used for detection of liphophilic biotoxins in the UK since 10 January 2011; and if he will make a statement.
Anne Milton: We are advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has responsibility for the monitoring of marine biotoxins in shellfish, that animals have been used for the detection of lipophilic biotoxins in the United Kingdom since 10 January 2011.
This testing is required by European Union legislation to protect consumers from the risk of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. However, recent changes to the legislation require member states to use an alternative chemical method by 31 December 2014. The FSA has advised that a chemical method has been validated and will be implemented as soon as technical issues associated with the practical application of the method have been resolved. They expect to implement the new method by autumn this year.
26 July 2010
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences her Department has issued allowing the use of the mouse/rat bioassay (MBA/RBA) method to detect marine biotoxins in shellfish; on what date each such licence was issued; in respect of which (a) shellfish species and (b) toxin groups each licence since June 2000 was granted; how many such licences were revoked during the period; and on what dates; and what procedure her Department has used to develop new guidelines for the detection of marine biotoxins without recourse to MBA/RBA methods.
Lynne Featherstone: Currently there is one project licence granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 allowing the use of the mouse/rat bioassay (MBA/RBA) method to detect and quantify marine biotoxins in shellfish. This licence was granted on the 28 May 2009.
Regulations EC 2074/2005, EC853/2004 and EC854/2004 set out the relevant EU requirements.
Under the authority of the current project licence animals are only used with the intention of detecting and quantifying toxins specified in the EU regulations as paralytic shellfish (PSP) toxins and lipophilic toxins, otherwise known as DSP.
Since 2000, the more commonly tested species were mussels, pacific and native oysters, cockles, razors and king and queen scallops.
Since June 2000 four project licences allowing the use of the mouse/rat bioassay (MBA/RBA) method to detect marine biotoxins in shellfish have been revoked. From the information available to us they were revoked during either 2000 or 2001, May 2004, 2006 and May 2009.
The Home Office is not party to the development of new guidelines for the detection of marine biotoxins without recourse to MBA/RBA methods, but Home Office experts have contributed to an European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) task force on reducing, refining and replacing animal use for this purpose. We also continue to work with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in their re-defined role of overseeing food safety which includes shell fish testing.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate works with other regulators in the UK and Europe and with the testing laboratories in order to reduce the numbers of animals used in these tests and to refine the methodology where animal testing is still used.
6 July 2010
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were used in the safety testing of shellfish in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.
Lynne Featherstone: I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock) on 27 January 2010, Official Report, column 912W.
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.
Additionally, release of data relating to 2009 ahead of the annual statistical publication is not allowed under the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
The annual publication "Statistics of Scientific procedures on Living Animals 2009" will be published on 28 July 2010, and will be available on the Department's website at:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/scientific1.html
3 February 2010
Mike 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.
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.
27 January 2010
Mike 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.
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.