Volume 1

The revision of the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes / House of Lords. European Union Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. European Union Committee
Date:
2009
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The revision of the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes / House of Lords. European Union Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    152/260 (page 146)
    91. Robert McCracken QC, when he was a member of the Animals Procedures Committee (the statutory advisory body), said this in his memorandum to the House of Lords select committee:*” “3. Unnecessary harm to animals is built in to the system as the absence of any requirement to publicise results leads to duplication. Pharmaceutical companies have a “strong commercial interest” in not publishing blind alley research results [according to a Glaxo Wellcome company representative who expressly agreed that her views could be made public]. 4. Medical progress may be hindered and the cost of drugs increased because of secrecy and the unnecessary duplication of research”. 92. We are pleased that the Parliament has passed amendments, based on a draft propose by the BUAYV, to tackle the problem of duplication. However, amendments 135 and 136 only bite if authorisation is needed, underlining why this is essential for all projects. We are concerned that the introductory phrase “Subject to the safeguarding of confidential information” in amendment 134 should not be interpreted in a way which emasculates the provision. By definition, the data which member states have to ensure is shared between researchers is likely to be prima facie confidential. The amendment must be intended to refer to other types of confidential information, but this needs to be made clear. (vi) Retrospective reviews 93. The reviews must not only take place, they must be published so that the public can see what has happened. Lessons are more likely to be learnt if there is public scrutiny and duplication is less likely to take place. (vii) Infringement reports 94. It is essential, for reasons of public accountability, that reports of infringements should be made public. Neither the Commission’s proposals nor the Parliament’s amendments contain this requirement. 95. In 2007, in a case brought under the FOIA by the BUAV,* the Information Commission ordered the Home Office to disclose documents about particular infringements. The Commission decided that, although particular exemptions prima facie applied, the public interest required disclosure. This was particularly so in light of the very light sanctions the Home Office normally imposes for infringements. (viii) Statistics 96. Statistics are an important source of public information about animal experiments. Under ASPA the Home Office has to publish annual statistics. They are reasonably comprehensive but the House of Lords select committee on animal procedures (2002) was critical of them and recommended changes. An obvious criticism is that an animal is only counted for the year when its involvement in an experiment begins, so the fact that it is used during a subsequent year is hidden from public view. Similarly, the statistics give the false impression that the vast majority of animals are only subjected to a single procedure whereas many are subjected to several (see the definition of “re-use” above). 97. The Commission proposed (Article 49) the publication by member states of annual statistics but said little about what they should contain. We have proposed the following amendment: “The Commission shall in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 51(2) by [within six months from the entry into force of this Directive] and after consulting the Parliament and stakeholders set out in detail the type of statistical information which is required. In doing so it shall be guided by the principle that the primary purposes of the statistics should be (a) to inform, to the maximum extent possible achievable by statistics, the public about the use made of animals for procedures in Member States, the purposes for which they are used, the development and use of non- animal alternatives and the level of suffering animals experience, and (b) to enable the public to assess whether appropriate ethical evaluations and regulatory decisions are being made”. 98. Not only animals actually used in experiments but also breeding animals and those deemed unsuitable or surplus to requirements should be recorded, so that a proper picture of the extent of live animal involvement in science is given. There is evidence that animals falling into these categories exceed those which are used. 22 Please follow this link: http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/Idanimal/999/1121102.htm %3- See http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_501081 25.pdf