| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Animal Experiments
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government spent on research and development in relation to methods of conducting (a) animal experiments and (b) non-animal alternatives to vivisection in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [118826]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Most work done on alternatives is neither done by the Government nor with Government money. Nonetheless, each year, the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for the research into the development and promotion of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. Through national advertising, the APC Research and Alternatives Sub-Committee invites applications for funding of suitable projects. It then selects the most appropriate and monitors progress. Details of completed research for 1998 is published in the Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1998.
The budget available to the Committee in 1998-99 for this purpose was £259,000 (an increase of 42 per cent. from £182,000 the previous year). However, this is not the only money spent by the Government on alternatives: other Departments also fund such work; estimates of spending reach approximately £2 million each year. Industry, too, spends millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives.
On an international level, the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (now known as the Unit for the Validation of Biological Testing Methods) through contributions to the European Union. It is the unit's task to monitor and co-ordinate research into alternatives and to develop the processes of validation--that is, the assessment of alternative methods to see whether they are reliable and whether they produce a level of information similar to the animal based tests they are to replace. The lack of progress in some areas is more often due to the limitations of science than to inadequate funding.
17 Apr 2000 : Column: 380W
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations have been made to him on the LD50 tests in the last six months; and if he will make a statement; [118900]
- (2) what representations have been made to him this year on licences for the LD50 tests; if his Department examines alternative methods before granting such licences; and if he will make a statement. [118902]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 21 October 1999, Official Report, column 624W and to the replies I gave the hon. Gentleman on 4 april 2000, Official Report, column 437W and on 10 April 2000, Official Report, column 72W.
No new licences authorising the LD50 test (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Guide 401) have been issued since 21 October 1999. Representations made on two licences under section 12 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were both withdrawn recently and the licence holders have agreed to submit the licences for removal of authority for the LD50 test.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him on reducing the number of dogs used in regulatory toxicology; and if he will make a statement. [118901]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government recognise the particular concern about the use of dogs in scientific procedures. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals may only be used where there are no alternatives and where the benefits of the programme outweigh any suffering caused to the animals concerned. In addition, certain species (such as dogs, cats and primates) can only be used where animals of no other species are suitable. Special conditions, tailored to each project, control and minimise any pain or suffering caused.
I receive correspondence from members of the public who find it particularly difficult to accept that species that are kept as domestic pets or companion animals are also used in procedures. Such animals must be purpose-bred and supplied only by designated establishments. Dogs are only used in about 0.25 per cent. of all procedures. (The results of this work have produced medicines which have cured illness, saved human lives and indeed added to veterinary science which have assisted animal care.)
I have not received representations direct, but I am aware of recent campaign material on the subject from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
Animal Procedures Committee
Dr. Ladyman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice (a) he and (b) his officials gave to the Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee about the resignation of Dr. David Christopher from the Animal Procedures Committee in 1997; and what advice he has given to the Chairman about Gill Langley's membership of the Committee; [118907]
- (2) when he was informed that Gill Langley was the author of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection report on Harlan UK; [118905]
17 Apr 2000 : Column: 381W
(3) following the report from Home Office officials on the credibility of the BUAV report on Harlan UK, what assessment he has made of the extent to which Gill Langley met the requirement for members of the Animal Procedures Committee to act in good faith and to the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity. [118906]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The authorship of the report of the findings of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection investigation at Harlan UK Hillcrest (published in June 1999) was not formally notified to the Secretary of State until 29 March 2000. I understand that a member of the Animal Procedures Committee declared an interest when the subject was raised at the Committee's meeting on 9 February. I have no assessment to offer on her role as Committee member: nor has advice about her membership (which is an appointment made by the Secretary of State) been given to the Chairman.
Dr. Christopher resigned from the Animal Procedures Committee in 1997, after the establishment with which he was associated was investigated by the Home Office. Again, no direction was given by the Secretary of State nor officials to the then Chairman or to that member. As was proper, the Secretariat to the Committee advised the Chairman only on how to handle discussion of the investigation at the relevant meetings of the Committee.
Immigration Appeals
Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the delay in the forwarding of appeals papers by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to the Appellate Authority, relating to the case of Immigration Reference No. GAN75908, Home Office Reference Number IMP01009547/2(S), PO23042/99, in accordance with assurances given to the hon. Member for Wakefield on 23 December 1999; and if he will make a statement.[118839]
Mrs. Roche: The Immigration Service sent the appropriate appeals papers for this case to the Appellate Authorities on 22 January 2000. Unfortunately there is no record of receipt. To avoid further delay, duplicate papers were then sent by facsimile on 10 March but, in this form, they were not acceptable to the Appellant Authority. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate will now forward a full bundle to the Authority as a matter of urgency.
Lord Archer
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many person-hours the Metropolitan police have committed to date to investigating the allegations that Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare had sought to persuade a potential witness to commit perjury in the Daily Star libel case. [118928]
Mr. Charles Clarke: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that up to 12 April, members of the Organised Crime Group have spent approximately 720 hours on the investigation of allegations of perjury made against Lord Archer.
17 Apr 2000 : Column: 382W
Crime Fighting Fund (Dartford)
Dr. Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 5,000 additional police officers which funding from the Crime Fighting Fund will create will be allocated to the Dartford area. [118825]
Mr. Straw: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 172-74W, which set out details of the share of the 5,000 recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund for all forces in England and Wales. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000, Official Report, columns 1-3W gave details of additional money for fighting crime and that the three year Crime Fighting Fund would be brought forward with the aim of delivering the recruitment scheme over two years.
It is for the Chief Constable of Kent to decide how to deploy the additional officers he has been allocated under the Crime Fighting Fund. Power to set establishment levels for each force was removed by the previous Government in 1994, under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for chief officers to determine staffing requirements within the overall resources available.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |