Andrew
Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misinterpreted
what I said. I have said now and in the past that everybody who wishes
such research to be phased out would like to see that happen. But
nobody is suggesting, at this stage, that it can happen today,
tomorrow, next year, in 10 years’ time or at any foreseeable
point. So no party—certainly not my party—will have that
in its manifesto, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Although ultimately
we would all like to see that happen, it may not be so for many
decades.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting
that on the record, because I may have misinterpreted something that he
said earlier and, if that is so, of course I apologise. It is
important, in respect of such a sensitive matter, that there does not
seem to be any play, although I am not saying that he was trying to do
that. I apologise for any inference from my remarks of party political
advantage being gained. From what has been said, I think that all hon.
Members accept the position as it
is. Looking
at the specifics in the directive, we have already heard concerns,
which I am delighted that the Government share, about the extension of
the directive to apply to some animals that are not already covered in
this country. There is an argument that perhaps more than one species
of cephalopods could be covered, which may be fair enough. However, to
include the proposals in annexe 1, which are essentially for all
crustaceans to be covered, is not justified in itself, let alone
because of the increased regulatory burden. I hope that the Government
find sufficient allies, both in the European Parliament and in the
Council of Ministers, to win that argument if they cannot talk sense
into the Commission on
that. I
am grateful for and will take up the Minister’s offer of a
letter about article 2(2)(a) and paragraph 3, because it is not clear
exactly what the directive implies with respect to embryonic forms and
what it means when it
says, “as
from the last third of their normal
development”, although
paragraph 3 says that that would be brought forward if they could feel
pain. However, I am not convinced that that is any different from where
we are at the moment in respect of the animals that are currently
covered. Perhaps
the Minister could say something about the apparent proposal to
prescribe humane methods of killing, which I raised during questions.
Clearly, animals are sacrificed at the end of the research, in many
although not all cases, and that must be done humanely. We already have
regulations that provide for that. However, it would arguably be wrong
to try to set such methods out in legislation, because that might
prevent new, even more humane methods, being identified and used. That
would be
counter-productive. The
Minister mentioned—I was pleased that she did so—the
counter-productiveness of the restriction on the use of non-human
primates when they have been bred in captivity. I am grateful for her
setting out the implications of that, particularly for male F1
animals. The
hon. Member for Romford rightly asked questions about anaesthesia.
Article 14 is clumsily phrased. I think that we would all agree that
anaesthesia should be used where appropriate and that it need not be
used where it is not appropriate, either because it would be more
traumatic than the procedure itself or because the procedure does not
justify it. Generally, it is right that there is an article on
anaesthesia. I do not think that the general public understands exactly
how much anaesthesia is used for experiments that are traumatic, such
as surgery, and that vast numbers of experiments are simply behavioural
and do not require any anaesthetic at all. It would be helpful if the
article reflected the real world of science and animal welfare and was
not as clumsily drafted as it is.
It would be
helpful if the article reflected the real world of science and animal
welfare and was not as clumsily drafted as it is. I raised the question
of re-use, and I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. It is
wrong to have a counter-productive measure that prevents appropriate
re-use.
There are
issues with the detail of the regulatory burden. I have concerns about
the jurisdiction in Europe being too highly regulated because of
onerous paperwork requirements. It is the animal welfare standards
coupled with good inspection that counts, not endless paperwork and the
need for people to apply in many different forms. What drives
scientists abroad is that they are bogged down in paperwork here, not
that they do not support the standards in this country and want to get
around
them. Finally,
there is a difficult balance to find with data sharing. We have to
respect intellectual property rights while avoiding or minimising
duplication. That leads to two questions that the Minister may feel
able to answer. First, to what extent does she think the directive
requires insufficient methods of avoiding duplication while protecting
intellectual
property? Secondly,
I know that not every scientific organisation agrees, but I think that
there is a case for us to require more systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of existing animal research before new programmes of
animal research are proposed. That would mean that there is
automatically a proper scientific review of the need to do a particular
experiment based on previous results. Data sharing and proprietary
rights impinge on the ability to do that, but will the Minister shed
light on whether the directive provides that in each country, or across
Europe, there is proper sharing, not just of data, but of the analysis
of published research? The scientific community has nothing to fear
from more systematic reviews in this area. That is what we require with
human subjects and, within reason, we could and should require it for
animal
subjects. I
welcome the Government’s robust approach to various aspects of
the directive. I hope that the directive is not rushed and that we have
a chance to keep a close eye on its
progress. 5.57
pm
Meg
Hillier: I thank hon. Members for the interesting debate,
which has been particularly useful at this juncture because we are
debating the issue in
Europe. I
will respond briefly to a couple of the final points raised by the hon.
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. I will write to him on the
anaesthesia issue because it is easier to go into the detail in a
letter. He made some useful points on intellectual property and the
sharing of science. I will not go into those issues because they are a
bit off the subject, but they are important and I welcome his
comments. Before
I sum up, I would like to correct something that I misquoted. I
suggested that the Home Office contributed £250,000 to the
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of
Animals in Research. The Government have committed £2 million a
year to that. I apologise if I inadvertently misled hon. Members on
that
point. As
the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, NC3Rs’ work
is of a high standard. The rest of Europe can learn from that. We have
no reference laboratory in the UK. NC3Rs performs a similar role to
that, but has no laboratory facilities of its own. With appropriate
adjustments, NC3Rs might fulfil the requirement as a virtual
laboratory. The concept of it as
a virtual reference laboratory could be a model for Europe. Again, we
have something that Europe can build
on. The
inclusion of invertebrates under article 2 was raised. I was asked
whether I had information on the scientific advice that was given on
that matter. It was based on advice from the European scientific
advisory committee, but that advice has not been peer reviewed and is
strongly questioned by other scientific experts. That gives us some
ground in the
negotiations. The
hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked about the training of
scientists. I responded to his question, but it is worth stressing
again that article 20 requires minimum education and training
standards. They should assist the free movement of scientists across
Europe, which we
support. I
also discussed re-use in response to questions, but the hon. Gentleman
raised it again in his summing up. We support the inclusion of
provision for responsible re-use, but the detail needs to be revised to
make better provision if potential welfare gains are to be realised. UK
users, funding bodies, professional bodies and welfare organisations
all agree with that. Therefore, consideration of the section highlights
the lack of clarity here and elsewhere as to whether reference to
severity relates to a prospective judgement or retrospective outcomes,
and the lack of definitions for key terms such as “use”,
“continued use” and “re-use” of animals.
That highlights some of the challenges that I laid out in broad terms
in my opening statement about ambiguity in the
text. The
hon. Member for Romford obviously got juices flowing—there were
many interventions on him—but I agree with him that it is good
that the matter is being debated not just in Europe but here in the UK
Parliament. The EU directive will eventually be transposed into EU law
once it is passed, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for
Newcastle upon Tyne, North that getting a level playing field in the EU
on the basis of UK best practice is a good example of how the EU can
work to the benefit of Europe as a whole—in this case, more for
animals than citizens, but citizens will benefit,
too. Overall,
I welcomed the support of the hon. Member for Romford and Her
Majesty’s Opposition, and I thank him for his comments. The
Government agree about the ambiguity in drafting, as I said, and I
reassure him and other hon. Members that we will be robust in our
negotiations in Europe on this
issue. My
hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble raised some points about
benefits to Europe. I agree that the UK is ahead of other member states
on this issue, and it is right that we take the lead if we are ahead of
the game. He rightly focused on the benefits for citizens—the
human impact. It is important that we discuss that in this debate. We
have had much discussion today about animals, but the point of the
research is to benefit the citizens of
Europe. My
hon. Friend is clearly right that we need to get the directive right
and not rush it through. I can reassure hon. Members about the
timetable: because of the elections—even without them—it
is unlikely that the directive will get to the Council
before the end of the year. That gives us ample time to discuss it and
to have public consultation. A full consultation is at present
scheduled to start around April or May. As I said, the Council process
will not finish until the end of the year. In the meantime, officials
are consulting, as they do routinely, with a wide spectrum of
stakeholder groups representing industry, academic scientists, animal
welfare groups and anti-vivisection groups to ensure that we get things
right. Today’s debate is an opportunity for the UK Parliament to
put its view on the
record. I
would take slight issue with the hon. Member for Hertsmere, who perhaps
underplayed the importance of the European Scrutiny Committee. Every
time I go to Europe to negotiate for the Home Office on justice and
home affairs issues—I do not lead for the Government in Europe
on this matter—I have to voice the parliamentary scrutiny
reserve and say that we are unable to agree to something if a scrutiny
reserve is still outstanding. The European Scrutiny Committee’s
reports are read widely across Europe, and House of Lords Committee
reports, because of the important information that they contain and the
intellectual rigour that has been applied to the subject, have been
quoted back at UK officials. The hon. Gentleman may feel low about the
role of the European Scrutiny Committee, but with my perspective on
Europe I can tell him that certainly on justice and home affairs issues
more widely, and, I imagine, on this issue as well, it sets an
example. My
hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble spoke about setting an example
on animal welfare. Others are more likely to follow our lead if the
standards that we set are practical and realistic and lead to good
animal welfare and good science, which means that we must not rush the
directive—we must get it
right. I
share the frustration of the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the time
scale. The Government have no desire to rush things through. It has
taken a long while—six years—to get to the position of
November 2008. Let us hope that it does not take another six years to
get to the final draft. However, I am more than happy to report
formally and informally to the European Scrutiny Committee on progress,
as I regularly do with the current Chairman of the Committee. The
Council discussion will be led by Ministers from the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. We
are doing work with other member states. We are aware that some have
reservations similar to our own and we will be working with those
states, as we do on different issues. I lead on other matters in Europe
and negotiate a lot with other Governments to ensure that a position is
built that we can agree with and support. I hope that we can work with
them in the same manner to make the necessary changes to the
draft.
The hon.
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made some very helpful comments. I
welcome his support and, at this stage of my pregnancy, the presence of
a qualified medical doctor. When I was jumping up and down at the
beginning of the Committee, I was beginning to think that I would give
birth a little prematurely, but I was slightly reassured by his
presence, although I do not know how long it has been since he
practised. I
agree with the hon. Gentleman and his general point about extremists
skewing and stifling the debate. It has frustrated me since I took on
this responsibility in July 2007. When I speak to experts in the field
and they tell me about their work, I think, “Why don’t we
know about this?” Often people are afraid to discuss their work
and its benefits, and we need to do more to
promote their research. If time allows, in the few weeks before I go
into labour, I will visit Oxford to see what is happening; if not, I
will go when I
return. The
hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke about humane methods of
killing. The Government support the principle that evidence-based
humane methods should be used, but as drafted, article 6 would cause
serious practical problems. UK scientific stakeholders agree that
annexe 5 is seriously flawed and should not be incorporated in its
current form, which we are negotiating on. His comments are on the
record and will be read in Europe, where they will be particularly
useful.
The hon.
Gentleman also raised the issue of non-human primates and he was
correct to highlight our high threshold. I hope that I have made the
Government’s position clear. Once again, he has highlighted the
need for better education about what research achieves, in terms of
results and animal welfare, which is why I went into detail about the
F1-F2 hybrid. A lot of the people who have concerns would be horrified
to know what happens in that approach.
Finally, I
thank hon. Members again for their positive contributions to the
debate. They will be read in Europe and, I hope, will contribute to our
negotiations, which will be stepping up in the next few weeks. Animal
welfare is more important than paperwork. The Government have faced
court challenges on that very point. A desire for regulation that does
not benefit animal welfare is of no benefit to science. We need to
ensure that we achieve the balance. With the support of other member
states and, I am happy to say, the cross-party support of this
Parliament, I hope that we can go in with a strong negotiating position
to move this directive along a bit further before the European
elections; then we can pick up where we left off once a new Commission
and Parliament are in place. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 15546/08 and
Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Directive on the protection of animals used
for scientific purposes; and supports the Government's aim of securing
practical, proportionate and enforceable legislation that makes proper
provision for the welfare of animals used for experimental and other
scientific purposes, without delaying or preventing the scientific
progress and benefits which responsible animal use can bring, and does
not impose any disproportionate regulatory burden which could have
adverse consequences for the competitiveness, sustainability and
success of the research base in the United Kingdom and
Europe. 6.8
pm Committee
rose.
| 
