The
Chairman: Order. It must be a question, Mr.
Rosindell.
Andrew
Rosindell: Will the Minister assist by pressing for this
nonsensical and potentially damaging provision to be
removed?
Meg
Hillier: I thank the hon. Member for Romford for making
that important point. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate
deals with a whole range of animals in its
inspections—everything from tadpoles through to dogs and horses.
As the hon. Member highlights, as a result of the directive, prawns so
small that the eye cannot see them could be included. We need to make
sure that there is some sense in this, because one of the challenges
would be how an inspector could test whether there was any breach in
animal welfare with animals so small. We are therefore negotiating
intensely on that point and the hon. Gentleman’s contribution
will be helpful in our discussions.
Andrew
Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her reply. As a
supplementary, may I draw attention to the final part of that
provision, which states that the directive applies to “embryonic
or foetal forms”, so that it can be applied in a uniform manner?
Correspondence with both the science and animal welfare sectors has led
me to conclude that we should attempt to relate a proportion of the
directive to the onset of functional neural pathways—the
biological development that makes it possible for animals to experience
pain. Does the Minister agree that the ambiguous nature of this
provision leaves much confusion and that a clearer scientific
definition is
required?
Meg
Hillier: The simple answer is:
yes.
Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): While we are
on that point, I should like to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for
Romford in respect of your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. It is
a pleasure to see the Minister for the second time today, following the
Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall.
The hon.
Gentleman’s question was about vertebrates and the
Minister’s first response was about invertebrates, which I
should like to get on to. Sticking to vertebrates, however the
directive talks about
“embryonic and
foetal forms as from the last third”
of their normal
development. My understanding is that neural development could occur
earlier than the last third—that is, halfway through
development. Does the Minister think that, despite the presence of the
word, “embryonic”—something usually taken to come
before foetal form—those provisions will extend existing UK
regulation which, as I understand it, deal with a stage halfway, and
not two thirds, through the gestational
period.
Meg
Hillier: The key point is the definition of what is
sentient and why pain is felt. We are in intense discussions about some
of the issues around definition. The point I was making about
over-regulating without reducing animal suffering is pertinent to the
debate we are having with the European Union, and I am happy to write
to the hon. Gentleman with more scientific, technical detail.
The
Chairman: Is this a supplementary
question?
Dr.
Harris: To aid you, Mr. Martlew, I seek only to
catch your eye immediately if I wish to ask a question supplementary to
the original question.
The
Chairman: We have until 5.30 pm, so everybody will get
in.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to
write to me about that last question. Turning to the question of
invertebrates in article 2(b), she will be aware that at the moment,
only cephalopods—specifically octopus vulgaris—are
covered. There is a proposal to extend that; she thought that it would
be extended essentially to crustaceans, among other things. I agree
with her that that extension seems hard to justify. Can she set out why
she thinks that it has been proposed? Has there been a scientific or
welfare argument for it, or is there just an urge to ensure that the
net is cast as widely as
possible?
Meg
Hillier: If I had the answer to that question, it would
make our negotiations a lot easier. I must say that when I have been in
Brussels and tried to engage MEPs on this issue, there have been a
range of reasons why they have backed certain positions. I do not know
if there is a uniform view. It may also be related to the politics of
the three Committees that are involved in this debate, led by Neil
Parish MEP in the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, who is
taking a very sensible overall approach. We will discuss the matter
further with MEPs. I cannot explain why they
chose to cast the net widely, but the Government will take the approach
to negotiations that I have already
indicated.
Andrew
Rosindell: Article 8 makes it explicit that non-human
primates will be exempted from use in procedures unless a stringent set
of conditions are met. Although the Conservatives are entirely
committed to the eventual phasing out of primate use, we are also
apprehensive about the impact of such hard-line measures as this one at
this stage. The use of non-human primates is a core component of the
most basic biomedical research. Recent independent reviews, including
the Weatherall report and the 2009 report by the Scientific Committee
on Health and Environmental Risks, which is part of the European
Commission, have concluded that the use of these animals is still of
crucial importance. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the
Government have fully considered the proposed provisions in
article 8 in great depth, specifically the impact that they
would have on the UK’s ability to combat diseases and advance
medical
research?
Meg
Hillier: It is a heated issue. I receive a lot of letters
about the general issue of the use of non-human primates, as I am sure
other hon. Members do. It is worth stressing that, under policy rules,
there has been no use of great apes and no use of non-human primates
for research into cosmetics, alcohol, tobacco or offensive weapons in
the UK since 1997. We have set a bar on this issue. I myself have been
to Covance in Harrogate and to King’s college. In both places, I
saw the housing conditions for primates, and in King’s college I
saw the work being done to tackle Parkinson’s disease.
The
proposal on great apes in the directive is weaker than our current
position, because we have an outright ban on the use of great apes.
However, we want to be able to continue our work. It is interesting
that many MEPs signed a European Parliament declaration asking for the
phasing out of the use of great apes over a short period. I agree with
the hon. Member for Romford and the official Opposition that, although
the eventual phasing out of primate use is something that we could
support, we are looking at a very long period of
time—decades—to achieve that goal, because of the very
important work that requires primate use. We have taken a clear view on
this issue and that clear view will be reflected in our
negotiations.
Andrew
Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her
reply. Paragraph
1 of article 10 states that
“as from the
dates set out in Annex III, Member States shall ensure that non-human
primates listed in that Annex may only be used in procedures where they
are the offspring of non-human primates which have been bred in
captivity.” Although
we are not sure of the precise scientific justification for this point,
we can only assume that it would mean many first-generation males that
are currently in captivity would no longer be required and therefore
they would potentially be euthanised, as the Minister said earlier.
That could amount to thousands of primates being essentially
“killed off”. Have the Government made a detailed
assessment of the implication of such a
provision?
Meg
Hillier: I went into great detail on this matter in my
opening statement. I will not repeat all that I said, but yes, we have
made such a detailed assessment. It is
important that we get the point across not just to the European
Parliament but more widely, because it seems very appealing, in animal
welfare terms, to choose a particular option, but sometimes there can
be negative aspects to that option. Euthanising thousands of male
primates is a negative aspect in terms of animal welfare.
Andrew
Rosindell: Paragraph 1 of article 14 on anaesthesia boldly
states: “Member
States shall ensure that all procedures are carried out under general
or local
anaesthesia.” That
incorrectly implies that all procedures involve seriously painful
interventions. In reality, most procedures cause no pain or only
minimal pain. Therefore, anaesthesia is appropriate for only a minority
of procedures. I would propose an amendment that references the
need—
The
Chairman: Order. You cannot propose an amendment. You can
only ask a
question.
Andrew
Rosindell: In view of that, has the Minister made an
assessment of the additional cost that will be imposed by requiring
that all procedures involve
anaesthesia?
Meg
Hillier: I hope that I did not lose track of what the hon.
Gentleman was saying. Severity bandings are the key. In the UK, useful
work has been done by the Animal Procedures Committee, which is an
excellent committee of committed experts who in their own time support
me as a Minister and my officials in making decisions in this area.
That committee has looked at severity bandings. It is important to
recognise that there are different types of experimentation. The UK has
a track record of getting these issues right. We have been through the
courts on these issues and our decisions have been upheld. We have
something to teach Europe on this and we will ensure that our point of
view is reflected in the final
directive.
Andrew
Rosindell: Paragraph 3 of article 14
states: “If
the procedure is carried out without anaesthesia, analgesics or other
appropriate methods shall be
used”. The
implication is that such methods must be applied whenever anaesthesia
is not used, regardless of whether the procedure will inflict pain.
Again, my concern is about the unnecessary increase in cost resulting
from the requirement that such methods are used for all procedures. Has
the Minister made an assessment of the additional cost that will be
imposed?
Meg
Hillier: We have the cost estimates made by the European
Commission, which estimates that the overall cost of its favoured
options is £50 million. It estimates that £135 million in
additional costs will be offset by administrative savings of £85
million. We are looking at the costings. I have recently met industry
members to hear their views on the matter. We hope that some of the
problems are due to drafting issues and that there can be
clarification. I am sure that we will not be the only member state to
go back and point out the possible cost of the proposals if they are
misinterpreted. It is important that we get the drafting right so that
it is clear and specific about when certain procedures must be
applied.
Andrew
Rosindell: On a specific issue of wording, paragraph 3 of
article 17
states: “An
animal shall be killed by a humane method when it is likely to remain
in lasting pain or
distress.” My
concern is that there could be ambiguity in the phrase, “lasting
pain or distress”, and we need to evaluate the scale on which
that judgment is made. I would like to see such a provision included in
the article. Does the Minister share my concern about the vague nature
of the
provision?
Meg
Hillier: As I said in my opening remarks, many of our
concerns are about the ambiguity in the drafting. I stress that the UK
has a responsible vet in every establishment, whose job is to be
independent of researchers. They must take a view based primarily on
animal welfare. We know that we have robust measures and it is
important that the directive does not undermine them, but spreads the
best practice that we can demonstrate to other European
countries.
Andrew
Rosindell: On another point, as the directive progresses,
it becomes clear that there is a proposed increase in the levels of
bureaucracy and administration, particularly in the assessing,
overseeing and reflective reporting of procedures. Article 47 proposes
the establishment of a national animal welfare and ethics committee in
each member state. Has the Minister assessed the necessity of such
provision?
Meg
Hillier: I recently met the Animal Procedures Committee to
discuss what its role could be in the proposed framework. There is
potential for that committee, which already does good work and has
interesting members—including philosophers and
ethicists—to morph, with some slight changes, into the national
animal welfare and ethics committee. I have asked the APC to look at
that, and it will report back imminently. So, we are already doing a
lot of this, and it is just a question of tweaking what we do to meet
the directive. I have no problems with the proposal, and we will
hopefully have a solution once the APC reports back on how we can
approach this
effectively.
Mr.
Borrow: All hon. Members will know from their postbags
that there is considerable concern about both animal welfare in general
and the use of animals for scientific research in particular. The
document explains that the European Commission has consulted across the
EU on the draft directive, but will the Minister explain what she and
her Department propose to do to ensure that there is consultation at UK
level, and what the timetable is for a decision by the European
Council? It is important that there be a period in which these
proposals, which will improve animal welfare, are subject to domestic
consultation, and that that consultation can have an impact on the
Government’s position in the
negotiations.
Meg
Hillier: We have regular consultation across a number of
Departments with those in research and private industry, as well as
with animal welfare groups. In the past year, for example, I have met
representatives of the RSPCA and the BioIndustry Association, and have
spoken at a couple of conferences. It is important
to maintain that dialogue. Officials are in regular contact and have
held a number of events, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with
the details, if he so wishes. So, there is a lot of consultation at the
UK
level. It
is critical that we understand the timetable for a decision. We have a
bite of the cherry here; thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee we
can discuss the directive in the UK Parliament. It came out in draft
last November, after we had waited a long time—since 2002. There
is commitment in particular from the Chair of the Committee on
Agriculture and Rural Development, which is one of three European
Parliament Committees involved in progressing the directive as fast as
possible in advance of the European elections. However, the elections
are in June and there will be a purdah period; in practical terms, the
Parliament will probably stop working in March or April. So we have a
small window to get in there and negotiate at this early stage. My
personal view, and that of the Government generally, is that it will be
a challenge to get the directive through before those elections.
Thereafter there will be a new Commission and a new Parliament, and it
will then have to go back to the committees. So what we do between now
and June is a bit of dress rehearsal, but it is nevertheless extremely
important to begin better to frame the directive, so that it will
improve animal welfare and science overall in
Europe. Ann
Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): As my hon. Friend the Minister
suggested in her opening remarks, there are widely different approaches
to transparency across the member states. As this is an upwards
harmonisation there should be greater transparency, similar to that in
much more open countries such as Sweden. Will my hon. Friend tell me
what the Government’s attitude is to greater transparency? If
data are shared to a greater extent between member states, that should
reduce the number of animal experiments that are
necessary.
| 
