You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1891W—continued

HOME DEPARTMENT

Animal Rights Protesters

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is considering to protect smaller organisations and businesses from criminal damage committed by (a) the Lobster Liberation Front and (b) other animal rights protesters. [188895]

Caroline Flint: The Government are determined that legitimate business activity will not be prevented by extremists.

We announced on 30 July in our paper "Animal Welfare—Human Rights: Tackling Animal Rights Extremism" a number of changes to strengthen the law on protests outside homes and harassment.

These new proposals will strengthen on-going action by the Government, police and Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to enforce existing legislation robustly and to ensure effective co-ordination to combat the criminal activities of extremists.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the activities of the Lobster Liberation Front. [187482]

Caroline Flint: We are in regular contact with the police about the activities of all extremist groups. Our position towards such groups is clear. We support the right of everyone to express strongly held views and to campaign legally to persuade people to change their mind and the law. We will not however tolerate those who use harassment, intimidation and violence to prevent others from carrying out their lawful business.

Dorset police have made an assessment of their activities and have given advice.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent attack on the Lander family of Swanage by the Lobster Liberation Front. [187483]

Caroline Flint: I cannot comment on the individual case, but the Government is determined to tackle extremists who attempt to stop people going about their legitimate business. No one has the right to harass and intimidate individuals or their families.
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1892W
 

We announced on 30 July in our paper "Animal Welfare—Human Rights: Tackling Animal Rights Extremism" a number of changes to strengthen the law on protests outside homes and harassment. These new proposals will strengthen on-going action by the Government, police and Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to enforce existing legislation robustly and to ensure effective co-ordination to combat the criminal activities of extremists.

Animal Experimentation

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met (a) the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and (b) the National Anti-Vivisection Society. [188100]

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not met either organisation. The last meeting between a Home Office Minister and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection took place in October 2001.I was due to meet the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in February 2004, but that meeting was postponed. I met the National Anti-Vivisection Society in January 2004.

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) persons and (b) organisations (i) he, (ii) his Ministers and (iii) his officials have met in connection with animal experimentation since 1 January. [188101]

Caroline Flint: Home Office Ministers and officials have regular meetings with the scientific community and animal protection groups in connection with the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is not practicable to list all of the meetings held. However, since 1 January 2004, in addition to meetings with licence holders and other staff working in establishments licensed under the 1986 Act, meetings have been held with the:


 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1893W
 

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 7WS, on the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, whether the publishing of anonymised information in relation to section 24 of the Animal Act 1986 (a) will include information on whether all possible alternative methods to animal experimentation were exhausted and (b) will be compulsory to all bodies undertaking animal experimentation; and whether bodies deemed to be in contravention of the Animals Act 1986 will have their licence removed immediately. [188153]

Caroline Flint: The ministerial statement of 1 July made clear that the Government are pressing ahead with plans to publish anonymised information about projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act.

All new project license applicants will be required to provide the information for publication as part of the licence application process—so it will be mandatory but not retrospective.

Final decisions have yet to be taken on the precise details to be provided, as field trial work is still in progress. However, it should be noted as regards alternatives to animal use, that under the 1986 Act the Home Office can only license projects when satisfied that no such alternatives exist.

Action taken on contraventions of the 1986 Act is determined by the particular circumstances of each case. Revocation of a license can be among the options to be considered.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, during his Department's monitoring of the Imutran xenotransplantation programme under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, primates were found dead in procedures of moderate severity. [187047]

Caroline Flint: Yes. 17 animals died between observation periods in procedures of moderate severity out of over 500 non-human primates used in the Imutran studies between July 1994 and March 2000. The evidence available at the time suggested that death occurred quickly with little suffering being experienced by the individual animals. None of the deaths raised issues of non-compliance with the relevant license authorities.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining his Department's definitions of (a) moderate severity and (b) substantial severity in animal experiments. [187048]

Caroline Flint: The categorisation of severity limits of protocols is explained in paragraph 5.42 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HG321). Protocols regarded as moderate include toxicity tests which do not involve lethal endpoints and many surgical procedures,
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1894W
 
provided that suffering is controlled and minimised by effective post-operative analgesia and care. Protocols that have the potential to cause greater suffering but include controls which minimise severity, or terminate the protocol before the animal shows more than moderate adverse effects, may also be classed within the moderate severity limit. Protocols regarded as substantial are those that may result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These include acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity or death is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of anti-microbial agents and vaccines; major surgery; and some models of disease, where welfare may be seriously compromised. If it is expected that even one animal would suffer substantial effects, the procedure would merit a 'substantial' severity limit.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the results were of his Department's most recent monitoring of the progress made by Imutran in achieving each of the objectives in its project licence for xenotransplantation research. [187049]

Caroline Flint: The Imutran xenotransplantation research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 began in 1994 and ended in 2000. At different points in time, and on different projects, Imutran tackled a number of different, but related, scientific objectives. With one exception, all of the predicted benefits relevant to the licensed studies taken into account in the cost benefit assessment of their project licence applications were delivered. However, by the middle of 1999 it became clear that they were not making progress in identifying a clinically potentially safe and effective means of preventing or controlling delayed forms of xenograft organ rejection and that the incidence of surgical technical failures was rising. We concluded that no new studies should be undertaken unless and until the cause of the technical problems was identified and remedied and an acceptable revised strategy for making scientific progress was devised. As a result, and after discussions with Imutran, its main programme of work was suspended by administrative agreement rather than formal suspension of the licence authorities. Some more basic work was allowed to continue in pursuit of secondary objectives. The Imutran project licences were eventually surrendered to the Home Office for revocation in July 2000.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes his Department has accepted and agreed to the original objectives in the project licence to Imutran for xenotransplantation research. [187050]

Caroline Flint: The Imutran research licensed by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving pig to non-human primate xenotransplantation studies began in 1994 and was carried out under three separate project licences. These licences set out related objectives aimed at furthering Imutran's overall strategy ultimately to produce a means of making xenotransplantation clinically feasible. The specific objectives of the licensed work included the production of healthy, genetically altered pigs whose organs would not produce hyperacute rejection when transplanted into other species; demonstration of proof of concept; characterisation of other forms of xenograft rejection; and, having
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1895W
 
developed an immunosuppression strategy appropriate for human clinical use, the study of the biocompatibility and performance of solid organ and tissue xenografts. More detailed scientific objectives were also set within this general framework. These detailed objectives were reviewed and refined at intervals while the work was in progress. Where authorised, amendments were largely made to those parts of the programmes characterising later forms of xenograft rejection and its management. The precise technical content of the amendments is commercially confidential.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an independent public inquiry into the Imutran xenotransplantation research programme; and if he will make a statement. [187057]

Caroline Flint: No. We have considered the matter very carefully, but concluded that the issues, including those regarding compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran Limited under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for its xenotransplantation research programme, do not merit such an inquiry. In November 2000, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) asked the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to carry out a routine assessment of compliance with the relevant authorities issued to Imutran Limited under the 1986 Act. The Chief Inspector's report, which covered five years work, was published on 13 July 2001 and copies placed in the Library. It confirmed that the general level of compliance was good. No new evidence justifying any form of further inquiry into these matters was found by the Chief Inspector nor has any subsequently been presented by any other source.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what systems are in place to ensure that the relationships between his inspectors involved in monitoring licences for animal experiments and the companies concerned are clear and objective. [187085]

Caroline Flint: Members of the Inspectorate are highly professional and dedicated and have the complete confidence of Government Ministers. The general civil service codes apply, and in addition inspectors are accountable for their professional conduct to the relevant professional bodies (the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the General Medical Council). As Government employees, they have no conflicts of interest with respect to places, or persons, regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They are not part of the management structure of the designated establishments, nor do they have any proprietary interest in the outcome of any licensed research programme. In addition, there is an active joint inspection programme, with more than one inspector visiting most places during the course of the year as part of the national inspection programme. Regulated places are also re-assigned between inspectors at regular intervals.

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many primates have been involved in projects regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 over the last 10 years (a) unclassified, (b) mild, (c) moderate and (d) substantial; in classifications of severity of suffering and if he will make a statement. [188715]


 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1896W
 

Caroline Flint: This information is not collected centrally. The numbers of scientific procedures involving non-human primates since 1994 are given in table 20 of the annual Command Paper "Statistics" of scientific procedures on living animals, 2003 (Cm 6291), a copy of which is in the Library.

A short table, giving the number of project licences in force at the end of that year according to severity bands, has been included in each annual publication since 1998. It is not, however, possible from that to identify the species used.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals have died following procedures which broke International Air Transport Association regulations; and if he will make a statement. [189390]

Caroline Flint: I am unable to provide the information requested. Although specific instances may be reported to the Home Office as and when they occur, we do not routinely record the deaths in transit of animals destined for use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, or the surrounding circumstances. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for the enforcement of regulations governing the transportation of animals to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason his Department did not take action in respect of the case of the three primates found dead en route to Huntingdon in 1998. [189393]

Caroline Flint: In fact, immediate action was taken. The three animals destined for use in research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were found dead on arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris from the Philippines on 5 August 1998. When the Home Office was notified of the deaths we immediately suspended authority to acquire animals from the source establishment until the causes had been properly investigated and any necessary action taken to prevent a recurrence. The problem was also promptly notified to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as the Department then responsible for enforcement of the regulations relating to the transportation of animals. While it was not possible to identify the causes of death, it was considered likely that a combination of the large size of the animals in relation to the transport containers and inadequate ventilation were a contributory factor. The source establishment co-operated fully and ensured that the size of the transport containers was increased and ventilation improved. No problems were detected with a further batch of animals imported in December 1998.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evidential basis is for the statement in paragraph 5.12.3 of the Home Office Chief Inspector's June 2001 Compliance Review, that a moratorium was voluntarily proposed and implemented by Imutran management in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [189112]

Caroline Flint: Paragraph 5.12.3 of the report on compliance with the authorities issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to Imutran Ltd. for xenotransplantation research, by the then Chief
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1897W
 
Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, is based on Home Office and Imutran Ltd. records. The Imutran progress report for January to June 1999 was the starting point for the discussions which led to the moratorium on the Imutran research. The terms of the moratorium were agreed after supplementary enquiries into the content of the report.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken with regard to its contract with Imutran following the Home Affairs Select Committee's Report; and what representations he has received. [189392]

Caroline Flint: The Home Office has no contract with Imutran Limited. Until 2000, staff of that company were licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to conduct xenotransplantation research. The work started in 1994 and the licences were surrendered in July 2000 following a decision by Imutran and its parent company to move the research programme to North America. The Home Office submitted evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in connection with the Imutran research in October 2003. As far as we are aware the Committee has not published a report on the research. The Home Office has received correspondence
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1898W
 
from Members of Parliament, a campaign group and members of the public about the research and has responded fully to all of the issues raised.

Next Section Index Home Page