| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate and I thank him for his comments about our meeting in my office. I say to him and to other hon. Members that I have an open door to future delegations. This area is kept under constant scrutiny by hon. Members, organisations such as Naturewatch, our Department and by the APC.
There are some issues on which I will have to come back to my hon. Friend, if that does not cause him too many problems, but I wish to point out a few issues regarding Government policy on the use of animals. We believe that animal experiments continue to be necessary if improvements in health care are to be developed with the minimum of delay and to protect the public and the environment from other hazards.
The NHS would be unable to function effectively were it not for the availability of medicines and treatments developed or validated through research using animals. It is no exaggeration to say that almost every form of conventional medical treatment has relied in part on the study of animals. Asthma treatments, medicines for peptic ulcers, schizophrenia and depression, polio vaccine, kidney dialysis and transplants are just a few examples.
While we accept that animal experimentation is both effective and necessary, we believe that it should also be kept under review and its use should be challenged. That is why we need to weigh up the benefits to the public against the cost to the animals. We must look at whether there are any other ways of achieving the desired results. We must also look at the procedures that are applied to animals and at how we can make sure that they cause the least suffering and use the minimum number of animals to achieve the outcome. Of course, in all cases, we must ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are applied.
We believe that this approach reflects closely what the public want. Opinion polls carried out in 1999 and 2002 reported that more than eight out of 10 of those surveyed felt that animal experimentation was justified for medical research, provided that all necessary steps were taken to minimise any resulting animal suffering. Basically, people want to be healthy and safe, but they also want to make sure that, where animals are used, welfare considerations are taken into account.
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): The Minister is right, but does she accept that the majority of the public are unhappy about the use of primates in animal experimentation, and hundreds of Members of Parliament have signed early-day motions expressing such concern?
Caroline Flint:
I accept that when it comes to primates there are additional concerns, which is why we must
23 Feb 2005 : Column 452
ensure that when we license procedures involving the use of primates we can satisfy ourselves, Members of the House and those outside as to the reasons for that.
The Government's job is to find a way of balancing public aspirations for cures for the health problems and diseases that reduce the quality of life of millions of people and condemn many to an early death, with the extent to which we can allow science and technologies to use animals.
We believe that legislation provides a highly effective means of doing that. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly described by many as the toughest legislation of its kind in the world—something of which we should be proud—and we should try to ensure that those standards are applied elsewhere, through our engagement in Europe and globally. At the same time, it is not a straitjacket. It is flexible enough to allow the latest ideas and technologies to be taken into account when decisions are made about animal use and to ensure that animal welfare costs are minimised.
In some areas primate use remains essential. I accept the points that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made on public concern about the use of primates, and in recognition of that, primates are given special protection under the 1986 Act and may be used only where no other species is suitable, where the likely welfare cost to them has been carefully weighed against the expected benefits of the research, and where everything possible has been done to minimise their numbers and suffering.
Unfortunately, we cannot end the use of primates without halting important areas of medical and scientific research, or jeopardising human safety. At present, primates are mainly used to ensure the safety of medicines and certain vaccines. They are also used in research on Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, visual impairment, stroke and reproduction disorders.
Neuroscience research on non-human primates has produced, and continues to produce, significant advances in the management of a number of devastating and prevalent human conditions that are not otherwise amenable to long-term treatment by other means, such as the management of Parkinson's disease and the treatment of intractable movement disorders.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to the increase in primate use in 2003. I understand that there is concern about the reported 20 per cent. increase in scientific procedures using primates in 2003, and I understand the concern about whether that may show a long-term upward trend in their use. I can reassure the House that that is not the case. When we saw the figures, officials looked deeply into the reasons for the increase.
I can report to the House that the great majority of the additional procedures recorded in 2003 stemmed from a single cause—blood sampling for the development of in vitro tests. This work, for which no other species was suitable, has continued in 2004, but I am pleased to say that early indications are that significantly fewer procedures using primates have been carried out for this purpose in 2004, compared with 2003. Obviously, we must keep the matter under review and continue to monitor the statistics, but I hope that that, at least for tonight, provides some explanation and reassurance for 2004.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 453
Looking to the longer-term trends in primate use, there are bound to be some annual fluctuations, but the number of procedures using primates has remained fairly stable for a number of years and we believe appears likely to remain so. The figure for 2003 was only 0.17 per cent. of the total for all animals. However, I understand that primates are a special case and the law is therefore even more stringent when allowing licences for their use. There is no evidence that the amount of primate use is being affected by an increase in brain research or developments in the human genome project. We will continue to keep that under review.
The human genome project is more likely to lead to increased use of genetically modified mice into which human genes have been inserted rather than greater primate research. Again, we will keep the matter under review and continue to ensure that all primate use is fully justified.
My hon. Friend referred to the Animal Procedures Committee and its work. As he knows, it launched its report on primates in July 2003. It contained several recommendations that were aimed at reducing primate use. In our initial response in November 2003, we accepted the committee's principal recommendation that there should be a stakeholders' forum on primate use. The Home Office and the committee jointly organised a forum that drew together APC members and a range of primate users and regulators in January 2004.
The Home Office has prepared a summary of the forum's findings and the chairman of the APC recently agreed it. It will be placed on the Home Office and APC websites shortly for further comment from stakeholders. I would therefore welcome it if hon. Members read the report. I am sure that they will come back to me with any issues that they want to raise.
Mr. Drew: The APC's original report dates back to December 2002. I know that various interim statements and 12 recommendations were made. It is now February 2005—we have waited an awfully long time. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the matter will be clarified on the website?
Caroline Flint:
I take my hon. Friend's concerns on board. The report will appear on the website. We are responsible for providing a full and final response to all the Committee's recommendations when further consultation has been completed. When we place the forum's findings on the website, we will seek views from other stakeholders, such as non-governmental organisations and hon. Members, on them. We will consider those views when we devise our final report on the recommendations. I hope that that will create an opportunity for further debate. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I would be happy to see hon. Members at some stage when we can hold a more detailed discussion about the issues.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 454
My hon. Friend commented on progress on the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. He knows that we have made significant progress on establishing the centre for three Rs. I am happy to inform hon. Members that the centre has already awarded its first two grants and launched a specific three Rs funding scheme, with a budget of £500,000 in 2005. The first applications have been received and are currently being peer reviewed. The board has also held a stakeholder meeting with a wide range of participants, including the RSPCA and the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research. That is an important development and the Department of Trade and Industry is the lead organisation on that.
The use of dogs was mentioned. The 1986 Act requires that regulated procedures use animals with the lowest neurophysiological sensitivity necessary to produce satisfactory results. Primates could therefore never be used merely as a convenient alternative to the dog. There has to be a clear scientific justification for the use of primates in every case. Second species use is necessary for some types of agent to be sure of their effect on man. However, I repeat that we examine every request for the use of primates seriously.
My hon. Friend mentioned xenotransplantation. No solid organ xenotransplantation is currently licensed in the UK, so in the context of what my hon. Friend has said that is not an issue for us now. Who knows? There may be an application in the future, but there are none at the moment, and I am aware of none in the near future.
Animal experimentation is an area in which Government policy must recognise a wide range of opinions when making the best possible provision to meet the public interest—and the public interest is often in two minds, as it were. Part of that involves being as open and transparent as possible about why animals are being used. I understand that we have made progress on licence summaries, and that details are now available on websites to help people understand the ways in which licences are being used. That is a huge step forward since I took up my responsibilities.
Because of public concerns, this is a highly regulated sector and will continue to be so. We are open at all times to suggestions about opportunities to reduce the use of animals in experimentation, not just primates but other animals. We do believe, however, that there are potential benefits to us and the environment that can currently be achieved only through the strictly controlled used of animals. As I said earlier, we should also bear in mind the need for all animal use to be fully justified, and for animal suffering to be minimised and carefully weighed against the potential benefits.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to a debate that can have no closure, because it is an ongoing discussion. We should use the opportunities provided in the House to increase awareness of these important issues.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |