(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, over the past 50 years there has been a profound shift in the way we view our relationship with animals. The ethical framework for that relationship has been changing and that process has become highly contentious and a matter of deep concern for millions of people in this country. At the most extreme, it has led to lawbreaking and violence.
The impact on public policy has been far reaching, as recent debates over hunting with dogs and over circus animals have shown. Perhaps the most important and difficult area is the use of non-human primates in research because it is the area with the most serious and far reaching consequences and because of these animals' evolutionary closeness to us.
There are many who believe that research involving experiments on animals is not justifiable in any circumstances. Others believe that it can be justified only if specifically directed towards medical need, while some believe it can also be justified in the investigation of more basic scientific research. However, it is now widely accepted that scientific and medical research should be carried out only if there is a clear potential benefit and if there is no other means of achieving it. So, for example, following bans introduced by the previous Government on the use of animals to test cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients in 1997 and 1998, the use of animals to test cosmetics or their ingredients is now banned throughout the European Union. This remains a deeply contentious area of public policy, with a wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations in play, passionately held beliefs on all sides, and in a scientific field which is developing at an extraordinary rate.
In these circumstances, it is the Government who hold the ring, balancing these competing views, and it is important that they do so. If the public believe that animals are being cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then public consent is likely to be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, and potentially valuable research will be lost.
Clearly, the Government's task is not an easy one. The Bateson review, published in July this year, found that in most cases research involving animals was now generally productive and of good scientific quality which may lead to the understanding and treatment of a wide range of human diseases. It also found that in 9 per cent of the research programmes reviewed, no clear scientific, medical or social benefit had emerged. The Minister will be aware that there is growing unease now on all sides about what might lie ahead.
Scientists feel beleaguered, as the Minister will have detected, for example, from a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in your Lordships' House. I see the noble Lord is due to speak later in this debate and perhaps we will hear more from him then. Those who advocate higher standards of animal welfare and the cessation of experiments using non-human primates are also worried. It is these concerns that I now wish to address in the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers and reassurance to all sides.
Immediate concern is being caused by the implementation of the new EU directive on animal experiments. The Minister will be aware, for example, of the RSPCA's lobbying on this issue and that it is generally accepted that in many ways the EU directive requires standards weaker than current UK ones. I recognise that the Home Office consultation on how to implement the directive has only just closed so the Minister will not yet be able to set out any firm conclusions. However, his department took a 25 per cent cut in its budget in the spending review, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that the Government will not use implementing the EU directive to reduce the number of Home Office inspectors and the number of inspections they carry out each year.
The Minister will be aware how important these inspectors and their inspections are to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. These are not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; they are vital guarantors of high standards of animal welfare in experiments. While the great majority of scientists carrying out such experiments act ethically and with scrupulous regard to the highest standards of animal welfare, the Minister will have been briefed that there have been notorious cases where distinguished scientists have ignored such concerns and argued they were entitled to do so in pursuit of their research. Given the closed and hierarchical nature of some universities, it can be difficult for those charged with upholding animal welfare standards on site to stand up to such academics. This is particularly important as around 70 per cent of scientific research involving animals is carried out in non-commercial academic institutions, which are self-regulating apart from the role of the Home Office. So Home Office inspectors and inspections represent a crucial protection against such concerns for animal welfare being ridden over roughshod.
There have also been concerns that the ethical review process should not be scrapped but retained and improved; concerns that the EU directive should not permit higher levels of animal suffering; and concerns about newly permitted methods of killing animals which are likely to cause public concern. I should welcome any reassurance the Minister can give on these issues.
Transparency is a crucial aid to good governance. I understand that the Government have accepted that the EU directive requires reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still commit an offence. However, if an FOI request went to the Home Office, the Home Office could then release information provided other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests, such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of the names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out what consideration the Government have given to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
Looking beyond the EU directive and its implementation, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. Last year, I understand that some 2,649 non-human primates were used in scientific and medical research in the UK, under strictly regulated conditions. While there may be no immediate substitute for the carefully regulated conditions that I have described, that should not be an argument for not continuing to seek such substitutes in the future. The Weatherall report, which was published five years ago in 2006, noted:
“There is an impressive body of work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in research. There have been remarkable advances in recent years in molecular and cell biology, non-invasive imaging, computer modelling and systems biology approaches, as well as techniques for human studies”.
I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships tonight that the Government will encourage and support such work continuing. In the long term, this can be done, and broad public support for the use of such animals in experiments maintained, only in the context of the national strategic plan called for by the Weatherall report five years ago. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what progress is being made in drawing up such a plan and when he expects a draft to be published and put out to consultation.
In maintaining such public support, it is also crucial that there should be a clear potential benefit from such experiments. As I mentioned earlier, it is now generally accepted that their use in testing cosmetics does not result in such benefits. Therefore, the European Commission is now consulting on a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. I understand that while other European countries have supported such a ban, the UK Government have still to make their views known. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House whether the UK Government will support such a ban and, if not, why not.
As long as it is accepted that animals may be used in experiments, questions will arise about the acceptable limits of such experiments. Here it is becoming accepted that it is the lifetime experience of the animal that is of paramount importance. Project licences detail only individual procedures that cover only direct suffering and ignore contingent suffering, such as conditions of housing, husbandry and transport, and the period of time over which such direct and contingent suffering occurs. If the Government are to maintain a broad public consensus on the use of animals in experiments, this must include maintaining a broad consensus on acceptable levels of cumulative severity of suffering. This cannot be left to self-regulation. The maintenance of public consensus is a job for government. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to address this issue in the context of the new world into which we are now moving.
Finally, the coalition agreement pledged that the Government will,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.
The Minister will be aware that there are many who wait anxiously to see some practical results from this pledge. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, for example, has submitted more than 30 proposals for ways to make progress in fulfilling this pledge. I should be grateful if the Minister could say when the Government will respond to these suggestions. This is a particularly difficult and contentious area of public policy, involving as it does profound ethical issues, potentially invaluable research into the treatment and cure of human disease, valuable commercial and economic interests and the passionately held beliefs of millions of people in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions of distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House to this debate, informed as they will be by their extensive experience in this field. I also look forward to answers from the Minister to the questions that I have asked tonight.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate, even though there has been a great deal of time between his proposing the debate and our having it in the dinner hour.
I say to your Lordships how important it is that, in using animals in science, whether medical science or elsewhere, the highest levels of transparency are always maintained over how animals of all species—not just non-human primates—are used. It is important across the whole spectrum in the furthering of scientific knowledge. I declare an interest as the chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents some 126 medical charities that are involved in medical research. I make it clear that AMRC is a member of the UK bioscience sector coalition, which has made a co-ordinated response to EU directive 2010/63, which governs animal research. However, several of our members have made separate responses to the directive because of their own interests.
Our starting point as a coalition was to ask the following questions. Will the directive improve standards of welfare for laboratory animals across the whole of the EU? Will it improve the quality for procedures permitted on animals across the EU? Will it drive down the requirement for animal procedures in line with the world-leading NC3Rs initiative? Will it help to maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading bio and medical science destination? The answer to all four questions was an emphatic yes. We believe that it will. However, given the high standards that exist in the UK, the question rightly being asked by several organisations—the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made reference to this—is: will the directive reduce standards in UK laboratories and open the way for less acceptable procedures, as is claimed by many of the opponents to the directive? I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord did not raise this in his opening speech.
The response from the coalition could not be clearer. As we said in our evidence, our priorities are: to promote high-quality science and patient benefits; to ensure high standards of animal welfare; to apply the principles of the three Rs; to harmonise EU regulatory requirements so that we do not have different levels in different countries; and to promote public confidence in humane animal research, which can be done only through openness and transparency. The idea that such a wide range of organisations as are part of the coalition, of which only two represent commercial interests, should wish to see standards lowered is quite offensive. Indeed, it would be counterproductive. You cannot achieve world-class research unless you treat your animal models with respect and care.
Seeking to strip away needless bureaucracy that does little for science or animal welfare is a positive, rather than negative, move. We are convinced that giving a greater emphasis to inspection, and making recommendations from inspections the basis for improvement, is far better for science, patients and the interests of animals than sheaves of paper-based accountancy, which is what we have at the moment. Transparency is about what goes on in the breeding centres, animal houses and laboratories; ensuring that research programmes are carried out to the letter of their remit; and, where there are changes, that those changes are themselves transparent and approved. Let me make clear that the myths and distortions spread by Animal Aid and others do little to encourage the quality of debate to which we have grown accustomed over the past 10 years when discussing animal procedures and science.
Let me take a number of those myths and distortions head-on. Animal Aid claims that the coalition wishes to scrap the ban on the use of great apes. That is completely untrue. The UK bioscience sector coalition can see absolutely no circumstances in which there would be a requirement to use great apes in medical research. They have not been used in the UK for the past 25 years and there is no reason that they should be in the future. However, it was stressed in our response to the directive that recent deaths in wild gorillas due to human viruses mean that there is a serious threat posed to that species. It would be quite wrong for us to say that we would not do any work on great apes or any other species that was endangered. That would be a nonsense, and yet that is exactly what we are being accused of doing.
The second area of concern is about stray cats and dogs. It is claimed that we,
“wish to lift the prohibition on the use of stray cats and dogs”,
and that we could re-establish the historical link between UK pet thieves and animal researchers. This does not only a huge disservice to medical science but makes the whole proposal laughable. The idea that you would use feral animals for experiments to get reliable results is utter nonsense and needs to be quashed. What does this directive aim to do? Certainly, harmonisation is at the centre of it. We do not deny that there has been an increase in the number of animals used in procedures, particularly in the past couple of years, with some 3.7 million being used in 2010. However, 47 per cent of those include animals that are bred to be used in laboratories, particularly transgender mice. It also includes the production of zebrafish on which to experiment. When you look at the figures more closely, you see that the use of dogs has gone down by 2 per cent, rabbits by 10 per cent, cats by 32 per cent and guinea pigs by 29 per cent. We need to have a rational debate on this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, rightly said, without clear transparency, openness and the sorts of response he rightly seeks from Ministers, people who have a genuine interest in medical science and who want to see animals treated well during these procedures will not get the answers they deserve. However, frankly, those who scaremonger should get the results that they deserve.
Lord Winston
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Wills on securing this debate I declare an interest. I have held a licence to carry out animal research for more than 40 years. I may be the only Member of this House to do so. I still have an active licence and, indeed, went to see the Home Office inspector only two weeks ago. I am also chairman of a company that is involved in transplantation work using pig organs. I recently had to go to the Home Office for revalidation. I have a certificate from the Institute of Biology hanging up in my lavatory. Unfortunately, that institute does not have a typewriter that works terribly well. The certificate states:
“This is to certify that Professor Robert Winston is licensed to operate on mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster and rabbi”.
No rabbi has visited my house to inspect the certificate, which is probably just as well. I replied using a typewriter which had all the “t”s missing; I felt that was the only way in which I could reply.
I am not sure that this matter is as deeply contentious as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, says it is. Let us face it: 95 per cent of us perfectly happily wear leather shoes. We should put the animal rights lobby into some kind of focus. I regularly speak at all sorts of public meetings around the country and I do not get the impression that animal research is so contentious. Of course, various issues still need to be addressed, but I fear that we might exaggerate the public response to this, which serves no good purpose.
My field has largely been that of in vitro fertilisation and reproductive biology. It is interesting to consider that more than 1 million babies could not have existed without the research that has been carried out on rodents. That is true of my work in the screening of embryos for genetic disorders. This has been a revolution in reproductive medicine. It means that women can embark on a pregnancy knowing for certain that they will be free from having a baby which will die in the first few years of life. That was made possible purely through extensive animal research. Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field, whether it be the liver, heart, brain or kidneys, or neuroscience or any major discipline. Last year’s Nobel prize in my field was won as a result of medical research on animals, as has often been the case with many Nobel prize winners.
I am now involved in the field of transplantation. One of the interesting issues is that organ failure is extremely common. Around the world every 15 minutes or so a new person is put on an organ transplant waiting list. I work at Imperial College London. Using mice initially but also pigs, we are trying to modify the cell surface antigens of the pig so that they are not recognised by the human immune system, so that when an organ is transplanted—a kidney, heart or liver—it may not be rejected. That is an ethical imperative. It saves human life in a way that no artificial organ appears to be capable of doing. We may talk about bionics in our society but I think that it will be at least 20 or 30 years before an artificially made organ is remotely possible. However, xenotransplantation now has a real possibility of saving vast numbers of lives and improving medical care.
I do not think we can argue that there is any substitute for animal research. Of course, reduction is possible but I do not think that substitution is. I give an example. Much has been made of the use of cell culture to replace animal research. I speak with some knowledge of cell culture, having worked in that field for a very long time with my embryos and with other tissues. However, the problem with cell cultures is that they produce huge numbers of aberrations which are not produced in the intact animal. In the intact rodent we are able to study cell signalling in a way that goes completely awry in a cell culture. The epigenetic changes that occur in cell culture mean that genes often do not express in the way that they would do normally in the intact animal. Of course, even organ culture will not do that either. It is a very technical issue.
I have worked with animals in the United States, in Belgium for a year, in France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. In Britain, the overall standard of inspection, control and regulation as it stands—with or without the European directive—is remarkably high. We should, however, try to improve our animal houses; that would be a great help. The problem, of course, is that universities often do not have enough money to do that.
We need to say very clearly that it would be unthinkable to take any drug which has not been tested on an intact animal. In fact, there is a case for having legislation to make it clear that a particular drug has only been possible for human consumption because of animal testing. This could be stamped on the packet, rather like a cigarette packet. With the medical advances, and the advances in animal well-being which have resulted from animal research, we should not lose focus on the overall picture. I urge the Minister to consider those in his deliberations in Europe.
Finally, one of the key issues is public engagement. It is a matter of great disappointment to many of us that, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, which has so much at stake in this country, and which contributes so enormously to our economy, has not been much more forward in trying to point out that it uses animal research. It is quite shocking that every university in this country does not admit that we have an animal house where we do animal experiments. If we do not say this very clearly to the public, if we do not make that message clear, then of course people will start to think there is something clandestine or something to be ashamed of in our research programmes. I really do not think that is true. Overall, from what I have seen in 40 years, the standards in animal care, improving as they are, are remarkably better than in almost any other jurisdiction, except for the circumstances in animal houses, which are sometimes not as good as they should be because of the financial limits in what we can provide for their housing.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are having a great debate, but can we please watch the clock?
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I want to make three points. First, the United Kingdom has a very good record on concern about animal welfare in animal experiments. However, the process has in the past been bureaucratic. In 2002, the Select Committee of this House, of which I was a member, observed that the best form of regulation was not necessarily the most bureaucratic form of regulation. We had an example of one very eminent scientist, who was very experienced in the use of animals, who had to fill in a form in order to obtain a project licence of some 300 pages. The situation has improved—I understand that a good new form for project licence applications was introduced at the end of 2010—but there is a variation in the attitudes of the inspectors. Some inspectors are very niggling in their requirements for information and others are very helpful. I hope that the Home Office will see to it that there is some sort of uniformity and a respect for best practice.
The second point I want to make, very briefly, is about the European directive. I gather that its origins lie in the fact that some of the European countries do not have proper regulations. It is very welcome for that reason. It is welcome also because it simplifies applications for licences. However, I am told by my scientific friends that there is one thing that has to be watched—there is more emphasis on checks and reports. It is a somewhat prescriptive directive and could become onerous; or it could be perfectly tolerable, depending on how it is translated into UK law. Our record in translating EU directives into UK law is not always exemplary. In many cases, a very bureaucratic interpretation is given to it, with details that are not insisted on by other countries, which places this country at a disadvantage. I am sure that the Government will consult very carefully and widely and will listen to the observations which are made.
My third point is a more general one. There is no doubt that there is an increase in the public understanding of the need for animal research, and I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that one exaggerates the degree of the concern these days. I think that something like three-quarters of all people, when asked by opinion polls, say that they have no objection to animal research if it is for the benefit of medicine and science. However, it is claimed that the situation is deteriorating and that there has been an increase in the use of animals. This has mainly been an increase in the use of mice, and mainly—as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has pointed out—because of the breeding of mice. Since the increase in knowledge of the genome, there has been more breeding of mice with changed genes, which enables more focused and productive research.
It also has to be realised that another recommendation in the committee’s 2002 report, for a special emphasis on the three Rs, has been successful. I was somewhat sceptical about this because there has always been a huge incentive for scientists not to use animals unnecessarily or cruelly, because stress is a great disadvantage in experiments. However, I understand that there has been success in the promotion of replacement, reduction and refinement. For example, the Ames test to determine whether a chemical has potential to cause cancer now uses bacteria instead of rodents. Some tests now use less complex animals than previously. In the case of pyrogens, blood cells from the horseshoe crab replace tests on rabbits.
Public support is of course important—as many previous speakers have pointed out. The progress made in the three Rs also plays a part in this, and there is no doubt that there has been better education, but it could still be improved. I would add to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it would be beneficial if every general practice surgery displayed a notice stating, “All the drugs used or recommended in this surgery have been tested on animals”. It has also been true that the activities of animal rights terrorists have been countered by much more effective police action and by some severe sentences imposed by the courts. This is one instance in which severity in sentencing can be proved to be effective.
It is for the sake not only of the health of human beings but of the welfare of animals that we continue to be vigilant to ensure that animal research proceeds effectively and with due care for the animals affected.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wills for initiating this debate. It is good that there is so much agreement across the House on such an important topic. Like others, I start from the premise that medical research has saved or improved the lives of millions of people and that we should do everything possible to avoid harming its progress.
From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:
“The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice”.
There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact—tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals—as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.
Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.
This nevertheless remains a highly controversial area—as has emerged from each contribution to the debate. Certainly I recall that university campuses experience more publicity, campaigns and sometimes violent protests about animal rights than they do over any other activity or difference of opinion. The moral debate on this issue continues, and I would argue that there is a need and a responsibility for those involved in research, and even more those funding it, to explain their methods and to constantly reaffirm to the public the benefits of their work. As others have said, although that is clearly desirable, it is not always easy. The protests on campus can be targeted at individual scientists and sometimes their families. Identifying individuals or promoting their work could make them vulnerable to attack. There have been sufficient of these incidents in the past to make universities wary of opening up this work to a wider audience through the media.
Although the level of activity has reduced in recent years, the methods have changed. Communication technologies mean that universities can be disrupted more easily with no notice and for longer periods. Indeed, Universities UK, an organisation of which until recently I was chief executive, is one of several bodies supporting an organisation called support4rs, which provides advice and support to individuals and organisations who use animals in biological and medical research to help them deal with animal rights extremism. There is always the concern that those activities could have a chilling effect on legitimate university research.
However, universities are becoming much more open about the use of animal experimentation, which is an important step towards ensuring that there is a well informed and healthy debate. The Minister, in a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, earlier this month, referred to the three Rs: replacement of animal use, refinement of the procedures used, and reduction of the numbers used. This policy approach has certainly gained support in the university sector and, most importantly, is becoming embedded in research training.
I said that this area is controversial, but people in the UK have positive views about animal research. Surveys show that about three-quarters of them accept the need to use animals in research to make medical progress, and nine out of 10 do so as long as certain regulatory conditions are met. So the UK's commitment to regulation has paid off handsomely in terms of public confidence.
Within the research community, however, a major concern is that the UK's controls are too complex and bureaucratic . In an excellent briefing that I received from the UK Bioscience Sector Coalition, it expressed the hope that the new European directive governing animal research, to which other noble Lords have referred, could be an opportunity to remove some of the unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy, which, I agree, benefits neither science nor animal welfare.
Every speaker in this debate has emphasised both the importance and the benefits of research using animals, alongside the rigour of its regulation. The Minister himself did the same only recently in this House. In conclusion, therefore, I simply ask him to confirm that the new regulations will be transposed in a way that will maintain the UK's high reputation and enable the UK to become a world leader in the biosciences sector.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I also express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for enabling us to discuss this important and, on some occasions, emotive issue. We are a nation of animal lovers, and if we believe, rightly or wrongly, that animals are suffering as a result of the deliberate actions of humans, including carrying out experiments on animals, we tend to react.
In the light of the revised EU directive governing animal research being adopted, the regulation of animal research in the United Kingdom is under review, as the directive must be transposed into UK law by November 2012, with the majority of the provisions of the revised directive implemented in UK legislation from 1 January 2013. As I understand it, the mandatory standards of care and accommodation will not have to be implemented until 1 January 2017.
It was of course an earlier European directive that led to the current regulations on animal research, which have statutory force under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The 1986 Act states that animal research or testing procedures can take place only in research facilities that have been granted a certificate of designation, where the procedures are part of an approved programme that has been given a project licence, and where they are carried out by experienced and trained people who have a personal licence to undertake such activity.
The revised European directive appears to have been received with rather more enthusiasm by those who believe that our controls are too complex and strict than by those who are concerned that harmonisation on the basis of the revised directive could lead to a watering down of some of our standards on animal research and testing—to the detriment, not least, of the animals involved.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Wills sought a number of assurances from the Government. Included among those were: an assurance, in the light of the financial cuts, that the Government will not reduce the number of Home Office inspectors or the number of inspections; an assurance that the ethical review process will not be abolished; and an assurance that the revised EU directive will not be allowed to weaken our existing standards and lead to an increase in animal suffering, including the cumulative severity of suffering. He also asked whether the Government had given consideration to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to increase transparency, and for an assurance that the Government is giving support for work on developing alternatives—in particular, to non-human primates—in research.
My noble friend referred to the Bateson review, which I believe was published in the summer, and its finding that, while in most cases the use of non-human primates was justifiable, in just under 10 per cent of cases there appeared to be no significant scientific, medical or social benefit. Among other things, the Bateson review proposed: that all applications for funding to use non-human primates should be subject to rigorous review; that there should be a full examination of the justification for choosing primates as the test species, including whether human subjects could be used as an alternative; and that the potential for using alternative approaches should be pursued. The review also stressed the ethical imperative that maximum benefit should be derived from experiments using primates and that all data should be shared, even if the results are negative, to prevent unnecessary duplication of work.
My noble friend also asked whether the Government would support the proposal in a European Commission consultation for a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. He also referred to the Government's own commitment to,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”,
and in effect asked what decisions had been taken, and were likely to be taken, towards fulfilling that pledge.
I am sure that the Minister in his reply will be seeking to respond to the many direct questions asked by my noble friend. This is not an easy issue and no one wants to pretend that it is. Many important advances to the benefit of mankind have been achieved as a result of experiments on animals, and no doubt further much-needed advances will be achieved in the future. There is, however, a natural revulsion against any inhumane treatment of animals and there is an objection to experiments being carried out if they appear to have little or no obvious benefit. There is also a feeling that advances in science and in knowledge should result in the need to use living animals less for research; that surely should continue to be an objective.
Changes in a European directive should not lead to any lowering of our standards covering the use of animals in research. Where our standards and procedures are higher than those called for in the directive, we should, as we are entitled to do, retain those higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances on that point and on the other issues raised by my noble friend, on a subject matter which we all accept is not straightforward but which, if not addressed by government—any Government—in a humane and careful manner is likely to increase hostile feelings. If that happens on any significant scale, as my noble friend said, we could risk losing the consent of the public for the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, with potentially valuable research being lost. No one would want us to end up in that position.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for reminding us that this is not an easy issue. That is almost the most important point he made in the course of his address. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing this debate and attracting such a wide range of expertise to speak in it. I thank my noble friend Lord Willis, who is the chairman of the Association of Medical Research Charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who has held the licence from the Home Office for some 40 years—I apologise to him on behalf of Home Office Ministers some 40 years ago who had a typewriter that did not have any “t”s in it. I will make sure that is corrected in due course and the appropriate licence is issued, but no doubt the noble Lord has the appropriate licence. I will say a little more about what the noble Lord had to say later on; he made some very important points.
We also heard my noble friend Lord Taverne, who again has a great record in this area. I was very encouraged that he reminded the House that we have a very good record in this country and it is something that we should be proud of. However, it is obviously something that we must get right. Again, I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with her experience as a former chief executive of Universities UK, talk about the importance of research in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about the need for the Government to hold the ring to provide balance. I am not sure that “holding the ring” is necessarily the right analogy—I cannot remember quite where it comes from—but let us just talk about providing balance, because I think that balance is important.
I start by saying—here I echo the expert remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—that animal experimentation continues to be absolutely vital both in developing the improvements in healthcare that we have seen over the past hundred or however many years it is and in ensuring that all our health services continue to function effectively with the gains that have been provided to us over the years. I was very grateful for everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said about IVF and the number of Nobel prize winners whose research had been involved and so on. I was also grateful for what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said about the need to ensure that there is appropriate public engagement in these matters. Again, it is very important that the right message about what we are doing is put across to everyone.
Having said all that—this is where I add my “but”—we have a moral obligation to ensure that effective arrangements are made for the protection of animals used in that work. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was right to talk about a balance. I have used the word “balance” virtually every day that I have spoken for the Home Office in this House, but this is one area where balance is absolutely vital—a balance between the need for research and the need for effective protection.
The regulation of animal experiments and testing is of significant public interest—a point emphasised by all noble Lords. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals used for scientific purposes.
That brings me to the transposition of the new European directive, mentioned particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but also by my noble friend Lord Taverne. We believe that getting the transposition of the directive is absolutely vital. It provides a valuable and timely opportunity for the United Kingdom to review all its legislation governing experiments on animals. It also provides an opportunity to confirm the best aspects of current regulation and to make improvements where we can do better. We believe that the new directive will help us to promote the further development of alternatives to the use of animals. It will also allow us further to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—where it exists and to streamline our existing processes where this will not adversely affect animal welfare, building on the significant improvements that we have already made in the day-to-day implementation of current regulations.
Concerns have been expressed that the transposition of the new directive will lead to a weakening of United Kingdom standards. I emphasise that my understanding was that the Commission looked to this country more than any other to check the standards because we are the model. However, I give an assurance that we will certainly not be looking to reduce our standards in any way whatever. Further to that, Article 2 of the directive provides a mechanism that we can use to retain current higher UK standards, and we intend to use that mechanism wherever necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked a number of questions. I hope to address them more or less in the order that he put them and, in the process, to deal with some of the other points raised by other noble Lords. I start with the inspectorate. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Rosser, that we will maintain a strong and properly resourced inspectorate. The relationship among inspectors, establishments and licence holders is crucial to the effective implementation of the regulatory framework and we will not jeopardise that. The inspectorate will continue to carry out a comprehensive programme of inspections.
In their present form, local ethical review processes in licensed establishments—which have made a very significant contribution to animal welfare and the reduction, replacement and refinement of animal welfare procedures—will continue. Again, I was grateful that noble Lords stressed those three Rs. The new European directive requires each breeder, supplier and user to set up an animal welfare body with similar functions but less extensive membership. The recent public consultation has shown that there is widespread support from all sectors in the United Kingdom for animal welfare bodies to have a broader membership and a more extensive role than that set out in the directive. I assure the House that we will take full account of those views when we conclude our transposition of that aspect of the new directive.
Turning to the question of transparency raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, we will also continue to encourage the full publication of a range of information about animal research to assist public understanding of its purpose and value. That was something that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was concerned about. To this end we will aim to publish non-technical summaries for all licensed projects. We will also consider how we might adapt Section 24 of the 1986 Act—the statutory bar to disclosure—to enable more information to be disclosed, again ensuring that proper safeguards are included.
I turn now to the use of non-human primates. First, I can assure my noble friend Lord Willis that we do intend to continue the current ban on the use of great apes and likewise we will continue the ban on the use of stray animals that he asked about. There are particular concerns about the use of non-human primates. Research using non-human primates is a small but currently vital part of work to protect and improve human lives. I assure the House that the Government will continue to be supportive of all work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in scientific research.
The Weatherall report provided a valuable contribution to this issue. I would like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on one aspect. It did not actually call for a national strategic plan, but made 16 valuable recommendations, which are being taken forward by their respective constituencies. In terms of public support for the use of animals in scientific research, the most relevant recommendation was for scientific journals to incorporate details of animal welfare and the steps taken to ameliorate suffering, when publishing papers that involved non-human primate research.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—the national centre for the 3Rs—has developed guidelines for the publication of research using animals, which specifically include the requirement to describe husbandry and welfare associated measures. These guidelines have since been taken up by a large number of journals, including Nature and associated publications. Although we know from the most recent RSPCA survey of journal policies that there is more the sector could do, we are pleased with the direction of travel.
Following the Weatherall report, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be aware, we had the report of Professor Bateson, which reviewed medical research projects conducted over the last 10 years using non-human primates. His report noted that the research under review was generally of good quality and was highly cited, while some was of outstanding quality. The review panel was, however, concerned about the small proportion—about 9 per cent of research programmes—from which no clear scientific, medical or social benefit emerged. The Medical Research Council has responded that all research involves testing new ideas and that it is inevitable that some of it does not work out. The MRC will continue to work to ensure that all grant recipients using non-human primates are clear about the expected scientific, medical or social benefits and, if these are not realised, that the reasons why are explored to ensure that lessons are learnt for the future.
I am beginning to run low on time. I will move on to the points raised about a cosmetics marketing ban, which is a much more complex matter than it first appears. The marketing ban is being phased in and took effect in 2009 for all cosmetics and ingredients except for those used in tests for the most complex human health effects. The full marketing ban was always conditional on there being full and validated replacement tests in place. We know that such tests will not be available by the 2013 deadline referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact were the ban to go ahead in 2013. We take the issue very seriously and will work with the Commission and others ahead of an expected decision at the end of the year. We will take into account all available evidence before reaching a United Kingdom position.
I have two minutes to touch on the comments that the noble Lord made about the coalition commitments. The coalition agreed to include a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. We will look closely at all suggestions to deliver on that commitment, including those from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and others, and will respond in due course. The commitment will be delivered through a science-led programme led by the national centre for the three Rs. The national centre was selected because it has provided exceptional leadership and is internationally recognised as a world leader in this area. It will closely involve all government departments and agencies, including the Home Office inspectorate, research communities in both academia and industry and others with relevant animal welfare interests.
This has been a very useful and thought-provoking debate. The transposition of the new directive and the revision of current UK legislation is a complex task, and in the course of the debate it has been possible to cover only a small fraction of the issues involved. However, it has been useful and I hope that it will help us to prepare for the task ahead. I thank all noble Lords who spoke.