---

Fees and Charges

7.5 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move,

That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Fees (No. 1) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, there is a system by which the users--those involved with animal procedures, who are mainly holders of personal licences--pay a licence fee that is altered from time to time by Parliament. It has always been agreed that the income generated is expected to meet the full costs of administering the Act, including the licensing system, the Home Office inspectorate, the Animal Procedures Committee and Home Office grants to sponsor research into alternatives. Those costs have reduced, but amount to some £2.3 million per annum.

The fees have been set according to the expected level of income. However, recently, because of a reduction in the number of personal licences--some 3,000 fewer are being issued than originally expected--there has been a deficit in the income. The order is designed to make up that deficit, and the Home Office will ask users to pay a one-off fee to make it up. The personal licence fee will go up from £110 to £135 and, under the order, a one-off fee of £89 will be levied. That will close the deficit and put the system back in financial balance. I therefore commend the order to the House.

7.7 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe): I listened carefully to the Minister's presentation. It was more interesting for what was not in it than what was. The Minister told us that the order will make up the deficit in relation to the fees fixed by the Home Secretary under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I understand why he is doing that. I also agree that such fees should cover the full costs of inspection and administration, but the Minister did not deal with several points.

First, how did the deficit arise? Secondly, is the current level of fees, even with the increase, realistic in relation to the full cost of providing the services?

Mr. Sackville: I explained that there has been a shortfall in the number of personal licences. There are some 3,000 fewer personal licences than was originally estimated and that has led to the deficit that we seek to make up through the order.

Mr. Morley: The Minister did say that, and I accept that there is a shortfall of 3,000, but surely any fee structure should contain an element of flexibility and be connected to the number of personal licences and, therefore, relate to the number of people who are carrying out experiments. I suspect that the shortfall may not mean that fewer experiments are being carried out; simply that fewer people are involved in them. Perhaps the Minister

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1264

will tell us whether people may be using the procedures to reduce charges by cutting down on the number of personal licences.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose--

Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend want to say something?

Mr. Banks: I had hoped that the Minister would give us more of an introduction, and I thought that he had indicated that he would give way to me before he finished.

Mr. Sackville rose--

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, but I cannot give way while I am making an intervention. Instead, I shall ask my Front-Bench colleague a question. The Minister said that there was a 3,000 shortfall--whatever that may mean--but how many licences are there? That is the question that I wanted to ask the Minister. We know that there are now 3,000 fewer licences, but what is the total?

Mr. Morley: That is an important question, which we must come back to, because it is relevant to the argument. The Minister may like to answer it when he responds to the debate.

My hon. Friend's question leads me to what I was about to say. If there is a shortfall in income because of the reduction in the number of licences, is there not a way of restructuring and improving the way in which fees are charged under the Act? I mean a restructuring designed to encourage changes in the use of animals, especially the use of non-animal alternatives and more humane procedures.

One of the purposes of the fee is to fund research and development into non-animal alternatives, which we welcome. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government put only about £250,000 into research into other methods--a modest sum to spend on the serious issue of switching away from the use of animals.

One way of boosting the money that goes into research into other methods would be to have a more realistic licence fee and to restructure the system. I accept what the Minister said about the 3,000 shortfall, but I went to the Library and looked back to the last time the licence fees were amended. If I am wrong, again I am open to correction by the Minister, but according to my research fees were last increased under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Fees) Order 1993.

The annual fee for scientific research establishments increased from £120 to £122--a £2 increase. If I am right, there has been no increase since 1993. Is it any wonder that there is a shortfall, when fees are put up by such a small margin? Personal licence fees, too, were last increased in 1993, from £108 to £110--also a £2 increase. The breeding and supplying establishments had their fees increased by the large sum of £8, to £553. I assume that there has been no increase since that date. If so, it is hardly surprising that a shortfall has arisen.

I do not think that those fees represent much of a burden on the pharmaceutical companies that pay them. I am sure that that level of increase was of little concern to them. The 1993 increase was unrealistic, and the fees

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1265

have not been increased since then. I do not think that that was responsible behaviour in terms of ensuring that the licence income kept up with the kind of services required.

The Minister says that there are 3,000 fewer licences, but I do not believe that the decrease accounts for the whole shortfall--the increases were tiny, at £2 a licence, and there has been no increase since 1993.

Such licence fee increases contrast badly with the Government's treatment of other charges and fees--council tax, for example. My local council tax payers would be delighted if their council tax was increased by only £2. My local authority is North Lincolnshire, a new unitary authority set up in 1995, and the people there have had to suffer an increase of 28 per cent. in their council tax. Yet pharmaceutical companies, many of which are very profitable and successful, pay such small charges.

Then there is what the charges are used for. The Minister said that they pay for the Animal Procedures Committee, for inspections, and for encouraging other methods. Those are legitimate and worthy objectives, but we must look at the link between income from licence fees, the work of the Animal Procedures Committee, and the level of inspections and their effectiveness under the 1986 Act.

In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister said that there were no plans to increase the funding of the Animal Procedures Committee from the current modest total of £253,000. He gave no information about any extra funding for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods--the main centre that the Government have supported for the purpose of developing non-animal alternatives.

As the Minister is arguing in favour of an increase, it would not be unreasonable to ask him to tell us how much of it will go towards increasing funding for inspections, enforcement and the development of other options. He has not told us how much of the money will simply make up the shortfall that has arisen because of the paltry increases in 1993. It would be useful to know.

A classic example of the need to encourage a move away from unnecessary experiments is cosmetic testing. We could have a higher licence fee for institutions and companies involved in such work. Section 5(4) of the 1986 Act clearly states that animal suffering should not be outweighed by human benefit, so under the current legislation it is hard to justify cosmetic testing on animals.

There is great concern about the possibility that the agreed European Union deadline for ending cosmetic testing on animals may be extended. That is outside the scope of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that many people would be appalled if that deadline were extended, because promises have been made to end the practice within the European Union.

Charges within the fees could be structured so as to encourage change and the use of other options. The LD50 test is outdated and obsolete, yet in 1994--the most recent year for which I could find figures--116,493 such tests took place. The Minister is probably aware that that goes against section 5(5) of the 1986 Act, which says that there must be "adequate consideration" of other methods.

There is an alternative to the LD50 test. The fixed-dose procedure is accepted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and there is no reason

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1266

why it should not replace the LD50 test. There is also some argument about the use of the Draize test, and whether others are available.

Where there are arguments against tests--arguments about their age and about the cruelty involved--and where other tests could be used, could the Minister not consider differential payments by the institutions and companies that use the older tests? When they apply for licences, they should pay a considerably higher fee for using those tests, which would encourage a move away from the less acceptable tests towards the more modern options.

In 1993 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection--the BUAV--exposed the fact that rabbits were being used by Wickham laboratories for pyrogenicity tests. Non-animal alternatives for those tests were not only available but had been recommended by both the United Kingdom and the European Union regulatory bodies, yet the tests were still taking place.

We are talking not simply about promoting other methods, but about a failure of enforcement under the 1986 Act. There has been a failure of procedure. Differential fees could help not only to discourage older, crueller tests, but to finance stronger regulation and more frequent and better inspection.

Why not also consider the fees as a means of encouraging a reduction in the number of animals used in experiments? A higher charge for using more animals would be an inducement to institutions and companies to reduce the number of animals that they use. That is not a new principle. It is accepted by the Government to promote environmental taxes. The increase in fuel duty by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation is aimed at encouraging people to economise on fuel. Differential rates of tax on lead-free petrol and low-sulphur diesel are intended to encourage people to switch to those fuels for environmental reasons.

It is not unreasonable to suggest differential fees for licences to encourage a move away from the use of animals, to promote other methods and eventually to eliminate entirely the use of animals. The extra fees would also help to enforce the workings of the 1986 Act.

We must accept that there have been failings in the 1986 Act. I welcome the fact that the Animal Procedures Committee is conducting a full review of the workings of the Act. The Labour party has called for that for some time. Investigations by groups such as Advocates for Animals and the BUAV have demonstrated failures--for example, rabbits being burnt and operated on without adequate anaesthetics, and the abuse and tormenting of animals in certain institutions.

It would be helpful if the Minister told us whether he would consider differential charges, and whether he would discuss the matter with the Animal Procedures Committee as part of its review. Extra funding could bring about a reduction in the almost 3 million animals used in experiments, and speed up progress towards ending the practice.

The principle of differential charging is established and accepted. It is clear that the shortfall in income is due partly to inadequate charging, going back to 1993. The order presents an opportunity to rectify the situation.

---