I am also concerned about the hon. Gentleman's comment on the use of great apes—or green apes, as the case may be—and where we would find them in a dire emergency. At the moment there are 1,400 great apes in breeding programmes in the United States. It is not the case that there would not be sufficient great apes available in an emergency, if needed. There are another 600 great apes in active research programmes in the US.

The hon. Gentleman's point about the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods is right. Particularly over the past five to six years, that organisation has established a terrific reputation throughout Europe. It would be sad if this directive moved us in the opposite direction.

I have four cats and two dogs and a great number of mice despite them. On speaking to my wife this morning and telling her that I was filling in as Liberal Democrat spokesman on this subject this morning, she said, "I hope you are going to support a total ban on all animal experiments." I replied, "I'm sorry dear, we'll have to continue to disagree on that."

There is a need for greater transparency about the benefits of using animals in medical science. Looking at the huge breakthroughs in medical science and the number of diseases for which cures have been found as a result of testing on animals puts these matters into perspective. The hon. Member for Norwich, North, who leads much of the work on cancer research in the House, would accept that the huge advances in cancer treatment have come about not just as a result of animal testing, although it has been part and parcel of them. The same applies to antibiotics and vaccines. Animals have been used to develop cures for everything from smallpox to polio, insulin, tetanus, rubella and anthrax. If we go down the road of saying, "At this moment in time, we can suddenly find cures without using animals", we do so at our peril.

Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I should like to call the other Front-Bench spokesman at an early point and call the Minister at 12.15 pm.

I have finished, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor, thank you for calling me to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. This has been an excellent debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this subject. I congratulate Bill Etherington on his contribution and thank other hon. Members who have spoken. There is consensus on most issues among hon. Members in this Chamber today and among the Government and the Opposition, and there is little that we have to disagree on. A lot of progress has been made and much more must be made in years to come.

Today's debate has been useful. I particularly commend the remarks made by my hon. Friend Mr. Amess about the work of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, and I commend the excellent work that he does with my hon. Friend Sir John Butterfill in the all-party group on FRAME. We look forward to making progress on this matter in the years to come.

The Minister will be taking a sabbatical quite soon and we all wish her well. I know that she feels as passionately about this matter as we all do. We look forward with hope to using the cross-party consensus to move this agenda forward.

May I emphasise my satisfaction with the fact that, following the recent European Committee sitting on the revision of European directive 86/609 relating to the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, this subject is once again being debated in the House and getting the attention that it rightly deserves? As the spectrum of animal welfare issues—particularly animal experimentation—continues to expand both in volume and in terms of public interest in it, Her Majesty's Opposition are wholly committed to reflecting this in parliamentary business. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North for choosing this subject for debate today.

My colleagues and I are satisfied with the general direction in which the animal testing debate has been heading in recent years. It is safe to say that everybody across all sectors would like to see the same eventual outcome: the replacement of animals used in scientific procedures, however long that may take. Indeed, it may take many years, but ultimately we all want to reach that goal. The Government, Opposition parties, welfare organisations and, perhaps most significant, industry have all made clear their dedication to continuing to develop and utilise alternative methods of testing that will help work towards eliminating the use of animals in scientific procedures.

As is made evident by the current revision of EU directive 86/609 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, many of the regulations on animal testing are being determined at European level in order that our European neighbours adhere to the standards that we already apply here in the United Kingdom. Although my party has reservations about the top-down approach taken by Europe in some areas of legislation, it is a pleasure to see an international approach to animal testing. I envisage that in just a few short years we will be debating this matter from a much more unified European perspective and adjusting our focus to more inclusive consideration of data gathered from our European neighbours. That can only be a good thing.

As shadow Home Affairs Minster with responsibility for animal welfare, I am continually reminded by members of the public and organisations that the overall number of scientific procedures involving animals has been rising steadily since 2000, as several hon. Members have mentioned. This rise follows continuous reductions throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, the most recent figures available show that we have now completely reversed the reductions achieved over the previous decade, to return to numbers not seen since 1990. Specifically, in 2007, we saw a rise of 6 per cent. in the number of procedures, which is a significant figure given previous annual rises of around only 2 per cent. The number of procedures undertaken annually is now 21 per cent. higher than when Labour came to power in 1997. Such data, of course, raise immediate concern about scientific progress, particularly in respect of the three R's programme, which we all support.

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research has, since being established several years ago, been widely accepted within the research community, yet we continue to see an increase in overall animal use. This is somewhat alarming when considering the long-term approach to developing alternative methods. Continuous rises in both the number of procedures undertaken and the number of animals used do not encourage a healthy mentality among the industry or the concerned general public.

Despite these reservations, it should be noted that a major factor in these rises is the use of genetically altered and mutant lines of animals, which can produce more relevant models for research purposes. The proportion of procedures involving so-called genetically normal animals has fallen significantly over the past decade. That is an especially welcome fact, considering that such procedures include animals taken from their natural habitats. The proportion of procedures involving normal animals rose by 5 per cent. in 2007, but that can mainly be attributed to studies using mice and fish that, traditionally, have not been controversial.

Additionally, it is worth considering the overall long-term financial commitments made by the scientific community. Over the past decade, the increase in procedures involving animals has been relatively marginal, compared with what went on before, but spending on bioscience and medical research and development has surged significantly. Therefore, animal-based research has become a smaller proportion of the overall spending in those key industries. That, too, is extremely encouraging. It highlights the investment being poured into other areas that will, I hope, lead to the eventual demise of animal-based procedures.

To summarise, I emphasise that the Government should be working harder to curb the overall trend in rising figures, but that we should also acknowledge some of the valuable work being undertaken by the scientific community in helping to minimise animal suffering. The animal testing debate comprises what can be classified as various sub-debates that focus specifically on different species of animal used in procedures, and different products or ingredients being tested. It is through those lower-level, more specific debates that we can work towards an eventual eradication of animal testing.

For example, it is a widely held view that testing on animals for the safety of cosmetic products is unacceptable and unjustifiable. That is reflected in the fact that, for the past 10 years, the granting of licences for the testing of finished cosmetic products and ingredients to be used in cosmetic products has been prohibited in the UK.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that many people are under the impression that animal testing for cosmetic purposes has already been phased out? In particular, many people do not realise that a product that uses the words "natural", "herbal" or some mutation of the word "organic" in its name may have been tested on animals. Does he think that we could do more to promote the fact that there are cruelty-free alternatives?

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is true that testing of cosmetic products on animals has been eliminated, and that many people do not realise that. They believe that it is still done, so we need to do more to promote such information. We also need to move on to eliminating completely testing of household products on animals. We can make progress on public perception, but, of course, such things take a long time to permeate through to the general public.

May I clarify what I said? Although the tests are being phased out, there are still many products on the market that have been tested on animals. There are also alternatives that have not been tested on animals. I was urging people to buy the alternatives rather than products produced by the like of Procter and Gamble, which does a significant amount of testing, or products that are imported from places where testing is still allowed.

That is another point. Many countries have much lower standards than the UK for animal testing, so anything that comes from the UK will be of a much higher standard than anything that comes from certain other countries. It is important to get the message across that we have one of the highest standards for animal testing in the world and that we are working hard gradually to reduce such testing. We have consensus on all those points, and it is important to get those messages out.

I am conscious of the time. There is much more that I wanted to say in this debate, but I know that the Minister wants to respond to many of the points that have already been made. I conclude by saying that all of us in the Chamber are committed to animal welfare. We are all committed to the gradual replacement, reduction and, ultimately, the elimination, one hopes—however many years that may take—of the use of animals in testing. We should be proud of the progress that has been made in this country. We have one of the best, if not the best, standards of animal welfare in testing in the world. The last thing that we want to do is to drive testing abroad, to countries with far lower standards, by making it impossible here.

We should salute those in the industry who have worked so hard with animals to ensure that cures and medical treatments are found for many human ailments and diseases. That is something that we should all support. I believe that nobody today takes the extreme view that we should abolish such tests. We need to have that resource, but, ultimately, perhaps long after we have all left Parliament—it may take that long; who can tell?—we may look forward to the development of alternatives such that the use of animals will no longer be required. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on working towards that eventual aim.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I congratulate my hon. Friend Bill Etherington on securing this debate, and I echo the comments of Mr. Willis. I agree completely that we need greater transparency, and I welcome the debate for that reason.

I became the Home Office Minister responsible for this area of inspection in July 2007. This is the second time that I have had the chance to debate it in the past couple of weeks, but we do not discuss it enough. Also, we do not discuss the benefits of testing, as well as the important work that the Home Office does to hold the ring and regulate the work that is done to ensure that scientists work humanely and constructively.

I also welcome the constructive support of Her Majesty's Opposition. Andrew Rosindell rightly highlighted the importance of the European approach to the matter. I will not go into that, as we debated it recently, on 3 February, but it is important that we are having this debate in the UK Parliament today. It sends out a signal to others in Europe that, although there are differences of view, there is cross-party consensus in the UK Parliament that we need to maintain high standards in this area and that we do not want them to be watered down by a European directive.

I shall try to rattle through many of the detailed points that have been made, but it is worth stressing where the Government stand on the issue. In essence, our position is straightforward. We believe that animal experiments continue to be necessary for the time being if improvements in health care are to be developed with the minimum of delay and if humankind and the environment are to be protected from other hazards. I shall not go into great detail about some of the medical benefits—we do not have time in this debate—but it is true that almost every form of conventional medical treatment has relied in part on the study of animals. Asthma treatments, medicines for peptic ulcers, schizophrenia and depression, the polio vaccine and kidney dialysis and transplants are just a few examples of how such work has led to benefits for humankind.

It is clear from the tone of today's debate that, although we all accept that animal experimentation is both effective and necessary, we do not relish it. We believe that it should be used only if the benefits have been carefully weighed against the costs to the animals; if there is no other way to achieve the desired results—I shall say a bit about alternatives later; if the procedures will cause the least suffering and will use the minimum number of animals to achieve the outcome; and if high standards of animal welfare are applied. We believe that that approach reflects closely what the public want. I shall touch on many of the points that were raised by hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North spoke about the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. It is a vital contributor to the work done to reduce the need for animal research. I welcome the support of my hon. Friend Mr. Drew, who also spoke about it.

Hon. Members raised the issue of transparency, and this is where I may have to disagree a bit with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. The Government are keen that there should be as much transparency as possible about the use of animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and I believe that we are making progress. I welcome the cross-party support for the Government's aim of being as transparent as possible.

Since 2005, we have published abstracts of project licences granted under the Act. The scheme is voluntary, but at present more than 80 per cent. of project applications provide an abstract, and 1,700 are posted on the Home Office website. That is important: the information is on a website, and anybody can look it up in their local library or wherever. It is not difficult to find.

The annual report of the national centre for the three R's, which has just been published, provides details of all its work, including grants given for research. If hon. Members are interested in following this up, the report is one way of finding out about money from the Government and the centre that has gone into research on alternatives. A great deal has been done to ensure that work is not duplicated, and I shall touch on that in a moment.

The animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate is also going to publish its annual report, which explains the inspectorate's role. The Home Office is in the middle regarding the animal welfare issues raised by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by scientists. With the interests of animal welfare firmly at heart, we have to strike a balance between a number of interested groups without stymieing UK science plc and the important work that scientists do in helping to cure the diseases and resolve the scourges of this world. The inspectorate's report also contains features on topics of special interest. This year, for example, we intend it to include the work of our policy and licensing teams, and I commend it to Members present as good reading.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North focused on statistics today, and, importantly, I stress my belief that our statistics are robust; I must differ with him on that point. We publish comprehensive statistics annually, and they have been collected and published for many years. In fact, I am told that our handwritten records go back to 1876, when the Cruelty to Animals Act was introduced, so Members could take on a lot of reading if they wished to research the subject. Our statistical analysis has improved somewhat since then, and we have not hidden any facts.

The statistics are produced under the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They are also part of the national statistics framework and under the management of the Home Office's independent chief statistician, who is accountable to the national statistician. The statistics are also subject to the UK Statistics Authority's new code of practice for official statistics, and those governance arrangements demonstrate that we are not trying to hide anything. We are also required to consult on substantive changes to the context and coverage of the figures, and we have many debates with different interested groups—mostly practitioners, but those with an animal welfare focus, too—about how we collect them. We ensure that we listen to those views and take them on board where we can. I reassure colleagues that we have no plans to reduce the scope of the current figures. We want to give a full and accurate account of scientific procedures under the 1986 Act, and it is important to be clear that we are not trying to hide anything.

On the statistics, in 2007, the main increases in testing, compared with the same period in 2006, were on mice, which went up 7 per cent., on fish, up 20 per cent., and on chickens, up 16 per cent. That was mainly fundamental research, including the breeding of transgenic mice and fish. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, raised the issue of transgenic breeding. I must tell him that I visited Covance and saw some of the work there, so I recognise the characterisation given by Sir John Butterfill of scientists being not big, bad people trying to do horrible things to animals but people who are keen on and enthusiastic about animals. Certainly, those whom I met are, and that includes the veterinary scientists who work there, too.

The overall number of procedures has increased, but the use of animals in safety testing for regulatory purposes has declined steadily. In the United Kingdom in 1995, there were 677,000 instances of such work, but in 2007, the figure had gone down to 416,000. New opportunities, especially in molecular genetics, cancer research and immunology, have led to new uses and an increase in numbers, but it would be difficult to say to the public, "We are so obsessed with the statistics that we want a reduction, even if it is at the cost of cancer research." We have to strike a balance, but the Home Office is clear that no licence is granted willy-nilly; it must be clear that there is no alternative and that there is a real scientific purpose to the work.

There has been some criticism of the fact that licences are not refused, but the inspectorate, which is locally based, goes out regularly to the labs for which it is responsible and holds discussions with the licensees while an application is being prepared. If it were not up to scratch, it would not get as far as submission; it would have to be modified or withdrawn. We obviate the need for unnecessary paperwork, where people submit pointless and bad licence applications, and we give them guidance in the same way as a good local authority planning officer would. Planning officers do not receive bad applications if they have such dialogue, so it is important that we do so, too.

The point was made about genetically altered animals, so I shall explain the process. The creation of such animals involves a number of surgical and non-surgical procedures, which generate a founder's stock. The process is currently counted as a procedure under European legislation, so simple breeding counts as a procedure. Maintaining colonies involves breeding from the founder's stock and, in most cases, the tissue sampling of an offspring to determine their genetic status—again, a procedure that is counted. Breeding per se is not a procedure, but producing genetically altered animals is, so whatever one's view about genetic modification and alteration, the process alone does not lead to suffering, although, in some cases, offspring will develop the disease involved, so suffering will take place there. In many cases, however, offspring are overtly normal. Although breeding alone counts for just over one third of the UK's use of animals, many will be subsequently used, albeit only for analysis after their humane killing.

Hon. Members asked whether the national centre for the three R's has achieved any results, and I refer them to its annual report. On replacement, we now require that monoclonal antibodies be produced in cell cultures. That is a step forward; it is not done with animals but in cell cultures. The majority of tests for toxins in shellfish no longer use mice, so that is another replacement. On reduction, the use of in-vitro screening tests to reduce the number of animals needed to identify potential skin irritants has also been successful. And, on refinement, there is a mouse-based test using pre-disease end points—rather than a guinea pig test involving skin sores—to determine whether the test materials might cause contact dermatitis. They are just some examples that I can provide quickly in this debate, but I recommend that anyone with an interest in this important subject look at the national centre's own work and report. I know that the all-party FRAME group keeps a close eye on it, and I thank the group for its work, because it is important that we have a reasoned debate. The group provides a good forum for such debate on a cross-party basis, and I am delighted that it has helped to secure today's debate under the sponsorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 also applies, and we have replied to more than 50 freedom of information requests. Unfortunately, we have had extremists in this country, but, happily, they are now generally in prison or have been dealt with appropriately. It has been difficult to be as transparent as we would have liked, because even publishing the address of a laboratory has caused problems, but we are not trying to hide information. We have to strike a balance between ensuring the safety and security of legitimate scientists doing legitimate and safe work, and ensuring that we provide as much information as we can. On the refusal of applications, inspectors recognise poor applications early in the process and discourage applicants from applying.

My hon. Friend Kerry McCarthy raised the issue of household product testing, and it is clearly a concern. In terms of my ministerial mailbag, it is the biggest issue, other than immigration, that I deal with. There is little animal testing of household products in the UK. One animal—a rabbit—was used for the purpose in 2007 and none was used in 2006. Although the numbers are small, the case for ending such testing is not clear cut. Many household products have significant benefits, such as killing bacteria and germs, and national and international regulatory bodies require that products, ingredients and chemicals are tested to ensure that they are not a danger to children, adults, households pets and the environment. Until reliables are developed, procedures have to be performed using animals, but there is not a great number, if that is any reassurance. Furthermore, there was no cosmetic testing on animals in 2007.

I turn to some of the points raised by Mr. Amess. Again, I thank the all-party group, under his chairmanship, for its work, and on non-human primates, I refer Members to Hansard of 3 February, when I went into the issue in more detail. It is important to stress that, although the directive's provisions appear weaker than our current position, we support the European Commission's proposal in principle, because the exemptions would be invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances. In practice, the provision amounts to an effective ban on the use of great apes, and that is consistent with our policy. We must ensure that we reserve our fire for other concerns about the directive. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods to animal testing is important. The directive proposes a national reference lab, but we believe that the national centre for the three R's could be a virtual lab.

It is a shame that we have so little time to discuss this important subject. Animal experimentation comes under an area of Government policy that must recognise a wide range of opinions, and I am delighted that we have been able to air some of them today.