Meg
Hillier: We know that across the scientific communities
there is a degree of openness. On upwards harmonisation, one of the
challenges that I have had as Minister is to talk about a lot of the
innovation and science that takes place, and at the same time stress
animal welfare. When I have visited establishments I have been
surprised to see staff playing with animals. At Convance, for example,
they were clearly animal lovers and interested in their welfare.
Talking to vets in establishments about their role in supporting animal
welfare might surprise some members of the public, who may imagine that
people who work with animals in experimentation do not have such
views. The
problem in the past, because of some of the difficulties that we have
had in the UK with animal rights extremists, has been that, the more
open we were, the more attacks took place. I hope that we are moving to
a stage where we can share information more openly. We publish
abstracts of most procedures on the Home Office website, which is one
way of sharing, but there is scientific community sharing as well. I am
happy to look into the issue further as we renegotiate the directive,
because my right hon. Friend raises a valuable point. We are trying to
say that the EU has a role and that it is no good the UK putting up its
barriers and not sharing information where we think that there could be
cross-fertilisation. Establishments that I have visited have links with
labs across Europe, so we have a bit of that going on
already.
Dr.
Harris: Returning to the question of non-human primates,
does the Minister accept that there is a key role for the continuing
use of non-human primates in the treatment of neurological disorders,
such as that pioneered in Oxford by my constituent Tipu Aziz? In her
earlier remarks, the Minister gave two examples—vision was
one—but another is research into vaccines for major diseases
such as HIV, TB and malaria. Many hon. Members feel that we ought to do
everything that we can with vaccine development to try to tackle those
major
scourges.
Meg
Hillier: I agree. We all have a responsibility, and I am
sure that the hon. Gentleman, as the Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon, is aware of his, anyway. He has a track record of
highlighting some of the vital work done and progress made through
using animals in research to tackle those diseases. It is important for
us all to understand where there are real benefits to using animals. We
do not want to use them unnecessarily, but for that area of work
non-human primates are a vital part of understanding the very issue he
raises, particularly regarding
HIV.
Dr.
Harris: I want to probe the Minister on her position on
phasing out. We heard the Conservative spokesman saying that he
supports phasing out, but the Minister said that she would consider
supporting phasing out at some point. I wonder whether saying that one
supports phasing out is realistic, when one cannot see a point at which
potentially using non-human primates will not still be necessary; that
might raise expectations. Could the Minister clarify whether my
understanding of her position is
correct?
Meg
Hillier: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me if I was
unclear; it is helpful for him to ask me to clarify matters on the
record. There is no realistic proposition for phasing out over any
current period of time. In an ideal world, we would not want to see any
experiments on any animals for anything, but we do not live in that
world. We live in a world where, if we want to tackle disease and come
up with new vaccines and all the other benefits that we can see from
scientific research, we need from time to time to use animals—we
need to use non-human
primates. Unless
or until the day comes when there may be some absolutely radical
alternative that the hon. Gentleman and I may not be able to see at
this distance of time, we shall still be licensing the use of non-human
primates. It is not the Government’s position that we can move
away from that. However, I would stress the investment that we have
made in the NC3Rs, to reduce the need for the use of animals. Home
Office investment is £250,000 a year, and money goes in from
other parts of Government to support the work of that centre, which is
important.
Dr.
Harris: The Minister mentioned the three
R’s—I am grateful for her earlier answer—and one
of the R’s stands for “reduction”, but we are not
seeing a reduction in the number of animals used, because of the number
of transgenic animal models. However, we are seeing minimisation. I
would be grateful if she could let me know whether the Government would
be willing to use “minimisation” in negotiation on the
directive—although it is not alliterative. Otherwise, we are
holding out the
prospect of reduction when the volume of science and the new ways of
breeding, particularly when breeding pairs are counted, mean that we
are unlikely to get reduction for some time in the
future.
Meg
Hillier: Certainly, when I am writing to many people on
the issue, I stress the point about transgenic parent pairs and how the
counting is done. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I shall and
look at it in the context of our negotiation documents, which we are
still putting together, making the debate very timely. His expertise
comes in very useful, so I thank
him.
Dr.
Harris: What is the directive’s position on
scientists in training? I have heard representations from people who
are concerned that the directive should not limit the use of animals by
scientists still in training, although we would obviously require them
to be competent and not cack-handed. Is there any mention of that issue
in the directive, and do the Government have a position on
it?
Meg
Hillier: Not that I am aware of, but I can go back and
check. The current view of the Home Office is that nobody should be
able to carry out a procedure without a personal licence. That would
apply to everyone whether they are in training or fully fledged and
qualified.
Dr.
Harris: On the issue of breeding pairs, on page 16
the directive says, as a justification for its
proposal: “In
order to gradually end the capturing of animals from the wild for
breeding purposes, only animals that are the offspring of an animal
which has been bred in captivity should be made available for use in
scientific procedures as soon as
possible.” I
am not sure that I understand that.
The hon.
Member for Romford and the Minister have said that they question
whether that is valuable at all. Do they see the point that the authors
of that statement make in that paragraph?
Meg
Hillier: Let me reiterate that this creates many barriers.
I raised the example of F1 and F2 non-human primates. Many of the
countries that supply animals that have been caught treat them as
pests, and they would be killed in the wild. Instead, they are used for
breeding. There are many issues—not least regarding animal
welfare—about going through to an F2 hybrid. We will be arguing
quite strongly about that because of animal welfare issues, the lack of
clarity about the benefits to science, and the additional cost burdens
that it would place on the European Union scientific community. That
would make it very uncompetitive compared with other parts of the
world. This is not only about competitiveness, but that plays an
important part. It is pointless to layer extra costs on European Union
countries involved in scientific research if there is no benefit to
science or animal welfare in the process.
Dr.
Harris: The key question as far as many scientists are
concerned is the current wording of article 8 in respect of non-human
primates. I want to ensure that the Government have the opportunity to
put their position clearly. The provision
says: “Non-human
primates cannot be used in
procedures”
unless
“the procedure
has one of the purposes referred to in points (1), (2)(a), (3) and is
undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or
treatment of life-threatening or debilitating clinical
conditions”. If
that “and” is retained, it will create a very high
hurdle. Is the Minister pressing for that to be changed as a minimum to
an
“or”?
Meg
Hillier: I would rather not get into a debate about the
“and” and the “or”. However, there is some
discussion about that matter, and when we submit our full negotiation
position in a few weeks we will be very clear about that. I am happy to
write to the hon. Gentleman and send him a copy of what is submitted. I
will ensure that I keep hon. Members abreast of our negotiation, not
necessarily about that particular word, but about progress generally. I
will report back to the European Scrutiny Committee at the point at
which this either lapses or is agreed, prior to the European Union
elections. There are many discussions about small words in the drafting
of this important document.
Dr.
Harris: I thank the Minister for that—I do not
blame her for not wanting to get bogged down in commitments to specific
words at this early point. As she said, we are quite early on in the
process.
I want to ask
about re-use. There is a proposal to have a general bar on re-use. Does
the Minister accept what is said by many people from the animal welfare
perspective in science, that a bar on re-use may prevent the efficient
use of animals under strict welfare conditions? It could mean that
extra animals are used, thus rather defeating the purpose of the
directive and the regulations.
Meg
Hillier: I agree. As I said in my opening remarks, we
believe that that could increase the numbers of animals used in the UK
and the suffering caused to them. That would be contrary to our mission
to maintain standards of animal welfare at as high a level as we
possibly can.
Dr.
Harris: My final question on the validation of the centre
for the 3Rs. I see an assertion in the directive that there should be
national reference laboratories specifically for the validation of
alternative procedures. Is it the Minister’s view that the
excellent work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement
and Reduction of Animals in Research has been done under the usual
scientific processes of ethical review, peer review and review before
publication? Does she agree that it would be a wrong step to have a
stand-aside, separate process that might raise questions about
quality?
Meg
Hillier: We have quite a good system in the United
Kingdom. We have ethical panels in all research establishments. They go
through a clear process of validating the work, and we can call in
anything. I can make recommendations to the Animal Procedures
Committee, which also sets its own agenda. Our system works well. We
are arguing that point in Europe and waiting to see what happens in the
overall
negotiations. Motion
made, and Question proposed,
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.—(Meg
Hillier.) 5.16
pm
Andrew
Rosindell: We should all agree that the revision of
directive 86/609/EEC is of paramount importance and is long overdue in
the name of science, research and the economy and, of course, in the
interests of furthering the cause of animal welfare. We must ensure
that the document becomes a positive contribution in the direction of
minimising and eventually—however many decades ahead it might
be—reducing and eradicating the need for live animal
experimentation. We must work together on all sides of the debate to
make that day arrive sooner rather than later and, indeed, when
scientific advances
allow. It
is both a pleasure and a relief to see that the all-too-often ignored
subject of animal testing is finally being given the Europe-wide
attention that it rightly deserves. For that, I am grateful to the
European Commission for publishing the document and to all those who
have taken part in contributing to, and assembling, such a significant
directive. As has been said, I wish to emphasise that I, my party and
most members of the Committee are satisfied that the concept of the
3R’s seems to be more integral to the overall tone of the
directive, and that is a positive step
forward. However,
while welcoming the need to adopt common standards of animal testing
throughout the European Union, Her Majesty’s Opposition would
much prefer it if decisions on such policy were introduced as
legislation passed by national Parliaments of sovereign states rather
than being imposed on high by the European
Commission. Mr.
Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) (Lab): I hate
to raise realism against party ideology, but the hon. Gentleman is
talking absolute nonsense. How can the Opposition argue that the
standards in such matters should be set at national level when nearly
all the main pharmaceutical companies operate at European level, with
research laboratories in Europe? Many of our universities have direct
links with research institutes throughout Europe. If we believe in
animal welfare, is it not pure common sense that we set some sort of
standard in a civilised world—or do the Conservatives not
believe that Europe is
civilised?
Andrew
Rosindell: We could debate the whole principle of the
European Union
today.
The
Chairman: But we are not going
to.
Andrew
Rosindell: No; we will stick to the subject under
discussion. We all want a high level of animal welfare standards, but
we have to go along with such policy because it is an area on which the
European Union can send directives. We can debate Europe on another
occasion.
Dr.
Harris: The hon. Gentleman said that he would prefer the
matter to be decided by a national Parliament. If it were shown to his
satisfaction that animal welfare would be diminished throughout Europe
if it were each to their own and there were not common and high welfare
standards, would he revisit his well-known view generally, and in this
specific area? Can he envisage circumstances in which it would be wise
to have uniform standards for animal welfare set throughout the
continent?
Andrew
Rosindell: When that day comes, we can discuss it. At the
moment, Britain is taking the lead. Our standards are much higher than
in most other EU countries, so the moment for the proposition put by
the hon. Gentleman has not
arrived. We
in the UK are far ahead of most countries in the standards and
regulations that we implement on the welfare of animals, both in
testing and in minimising the need to test animals in the first
place.
| 
