Search Results

1-20 of 37 results for askedby:"Norman Baker"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has yet to be repealed.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

3 March 2010

Reference

506 c1265W; 319541

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate he makes of the percentage of animals bred for possible experimentation purposes which are subsequently not used for these purposes. - (Holding answer 16 November 2004).

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 November 2004

Reference

197888; 426 c1567W;426 c1570W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Written Ministerial Statement of 1st July, Official Report, column 7WS, on the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, whether the publishing of anonymised information in relation to section 24 of the Animal Act 1986 (a) will include information...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

7 September 2004

For answer on

4 October 2004

Answered on

4 October 2004

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 7WS, on the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, whether the publishing of anonymised information in relation to section 24 of the Animal Act 1986 (a) will include information on whether all possible alternative methods to animal experimentation were exhausted and (b) will be compulsory to all bodies undertaking animal experimentation; and whether bodies deemed to be in contravention of the Animals Act 1986 will have their licence removed immediately. [188153] Caroline Flint: The ministerial statement of 1 July made clear that the Government are pressing ahead with plans to publish anonymised information about projects licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. All new project license applicants will be required to provide the information for publication as part of the licence application process--so it will be mandatory but not retrospective. Final decisions have yet to be taken on the precise details to be provided, as field trial work is still in progress. However, it should be noted as regards alternatives to animal use, that under the 1986 Act the Home Office can only license projects when satisfied that no such alternatives exist. Action taken on contraventions of the 1986 Act is determined by the particular circumstances of each case. Revocation of a license can be among the options to be considered.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

4 October 2004

Reference

424 c1895W;424 c1893W; 188153

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many applications made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were rejected in each year from 1991. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 December 2002

Reference

85842; 396 c745-6W;396 c745W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list the genetically modified animals whose creation has been authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, indicating in each case the novel characteristics developed.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 June 2002

Reference

61089; 387 c528W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to require the numbers of animals bred for experimentation purposes but subsequently found to be unsuitable for such purposes or surplus to requirements to be included in the annual statistics on animal use...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

15 May 2002

For answer on

23 May 2002

Answered on

23 May 2002

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require the numbers of animals bred for experimentation purposes but subsequently found to be unsuitable for such purposes or surplus to requirements to be included in the annual statistics on animal use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [57925] Angela Eagle: [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The published annual statistics relate solely to animals used in scientific procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This meets the requirement, in section 21 of the Act, to provide related information to Parliament. With the exception of the production of genetically modified animals--which is itself a regulated procedure--the number of animals bred but not eventually used for scientific purposes has not been considered appropriate for inclusion in these statistics. The Government have at present no plans to change that. The Animal Procedures Committee looked at the issue of the over-breeding of animals for use in scientific procedures as part of its 10-year review of the 1986 Act. It concluded that although some over-breeding was unavoidable, it can and should be minimised, and it recommended principles of best practice to help to achieve this. The committee also undertook to liaise with the Laboratory Animal Science Association, which has also been considering the issue of over-breeding and how it can be minimised, to refine these principles before finalising its advice. I expect to receive the Committee's report by the summer and will carefully consider the further advice it provides.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

23 May 2002

Reference

57925; 386 c554-5W;386 c555W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many breeding establishments in Mauritius are authorised as sources of non-human primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. - (Holding answer 10 April 2002).

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 April 2002

Reference

47997; 383 c630W;383 c628W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what safeguards the Government has in place to ensure the well being of genetically modified animals being produced and maintained for experiments; and if he will make a statement; what procedures are in place to regulate the transgenesis process used...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 March 2002

Reference

381 c974-5W;381 c976-7W; 41983;41982;41981;41980

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reason his review of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is not yet complete; and when he will announce the conclusions.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 November 2001

Reference

11804; 374 c175W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the primates listed in Table 2 of his Department's statistics on the use of animals in scientific procedures for 1999 which came from outside the EU (a) how many were wild-caught, (b) from which countries were wild-caught primates imported,...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

8 May 2001

For answer on

11 May 2001

Answered on

11 May 2001

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of the primates listed in Table 2 of his Department's statistics on the use of animals in scientific procedures for 1999 which came from outside the EU (a) how many were wild-caught, (b) from which countries were wild-caught primates imported, (c) how many were ill or injured on arrival, specifying the illness or injury in each case and (d) how many became ill or were injured during quarantine for reasons unrelated to the scientific procedures, specifying the illness or injury in each case; [160894] (2) of the primates listed in Table 2 of his Department's statistics on the use of animals in scientific procedures for 1999 which came from outside of the EU (a) how many were captive-bred, (b) from which countries captive-bred primates were imported, (c) how many were ill or injured on arrival, specifying the illness or injury in each case and (d) how many became ill or were injured during quarantine for reasons unrelated to the scientific procedures, specifying the illness or injury in each case; [160895] (3) in relation to primates destined for UK laboratories not used for scientific procedures (a) how many primates (i) captive-bred and (ii) wild-caught outside the EU were (A) found dead on arrival in the UK and (B) died or became ill in quarantine in (x) 1999 and (y) 2000 in each case giving relevant details. [160917] Mr. Mike O'Brien: We announced in 1997 our intention that licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will never be issued for programmes of work involving the use of Great Apes (chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans) and that exceptional justification is required for the use of wild-caught primates. In addition, the 1986 Act requires that non-human primates cannot be used unless no other species is suitable. Along with regulatory testing to help ensure the safety of medicines, non-human primates (mainly marmosets and macaques) are also used for other important areas of fundamental research. For example, they contribute to programmes of work relating to Parkinson's disease, visual impairment, stroke, diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine development. Table 2 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1999 records 418 non- human primates used in scientific procedures as coming from outside the European Union. The detailed information requested in relation to these animals is for the most part not held centrally by the Home Office and it is, therefore, not possible to provide all of the information required about them. However, Home Office records confirm that none of these 418 animals were wild caught. The overseas sources of primates used in 1999 were Mauritius, the Philippines, China, Israel and South Africa. I am advised that problems encountered with imported primates are generally few and instances of death following acquisition are very rare. It is not possible to provide general information with regard to primates destined for laboratories in the United Kingdom but subsequently not used. Such animals are not included in the annual statistics. However, I have previously advised the hon. Member that no deaths or injuries have been reported in baboons during transportation, including the group of twenty-eight wild-caught baboons imported from Kenya in May 1999 but not used.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

11 May 2001

Reference

368 c422-4W; 160894;160895;160917

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the benefits are of the licensing procedures of substantial severity under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; if these are dependent upon the species of animals used; and if he will make a statement; if he will exclude procedures...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

29 January 2001

For answer on

1 February 2001

Answered on

1 February 2001

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the benefits are of the licensing procedures of substantial severity under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; if these are dependent upon the species of animals used; and if he will make a statement; [148106] (2) if he will exclude procedures involving (a) major surgery and (b) xenotransplantation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 from the substantial severity category; and if he will make a statement; [148109] (3) if he will ensure that the guidelines attached to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 stipulate that the Secretary of State will not license procedures likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated; and if he will make a statement. [148107] Mr. Mike O'Brien: The reply I gave the hon. Member on 8 November 2000, Official Report, column 253W, fully explained the criteria for placing scientific procedures on animals in the category of "substantial severity". That reply also made it clear that, for each licence application, the likely severity of the effects of a proposed procedure on the animals concerned are weighed against the benefits likely to accrue in medical research or other developments. This is an area of research where, rightly, enormous care is taken in granting licences. This means that licences can allow protected animals to suffer substantially severe effects only in the relatively few cases where it appears justified by the significant medical, pharmaceutical and other research gains to be made (66 of the 3,481 project licences in force at the end of 1999 had substantial severity conditions). Even then, as I made clear in the earlier reply, licence holders are required to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and to approach the prescribed severity limit only when absolutely necessary. The species of animals to be used may be a factor in determining severity limits, given the criteria for defining the categories and the known varying degrees of sentience between species. However, the judgment on severity limits is exercised with respect to the suffering to be encountered by a protected animal, rather than the species by itself. The Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, presented to Parliament in March 2000, states that the Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated. This accords with section 10(2A) of the Act, which in turn refers to Council Directive No. 86/609/EEC, regarding use of anaesthesia and analgesics. As a further safeguard, all project licences contain a standard condition (number 6) requiring that only the minimum justifiable animal suffering is caused and personal licences all bear a standard condition (number 14) requiring the prompt and humane destruction of an animal that is in severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated. In addition, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectors have the power to require the prompt and humane killing of any protected animal they consider to be suffering excessively or unnecessarily. There are no current plans to exclude major surgery and xenotransplantation from the substantial severity category. Each application for a licence to undertake such procedures will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

1 February 2001

Reference

362 c267-8W; 148106;148109;148107

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the procedures used in the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; if the pigs were anaesthetised; and what measures were taken to protect the pigs' welfare; if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 December 2000

For answer on

20 December 2000

Answered on

20 December 2000

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedures used in the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; if the pigs were anaesthetised; and what measures were taken to protect the pigs' welfare; [142130] (2) if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [142129] Dr. Moonie: [holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving pigs to study the potential benefit of treatment with pentoxifylline following septic shock initiated by haemorrhage and peritonitis at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing `cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration. This research was part of an ongoing programme to improve the treatment of military casualties injured by weapons. Haemorrhage was induced by the withdrawal of 40 per cent. of the blood volume and peritonitis by the placement of known quantities of bacteria on a small quantity of sterile faeces within the abdomen. The animals were then resuscitated (blood volume increased) with intravenous fluids, and pentoxifylline was administered. The pigs were anaesthetised throughout all procedures and never allowed to regain consciousness. The anaesthetised pigs were monitored for 24 hours and those still alive at the end of this period were culled while still under anaesthesia. As a standard veterinary practice prior to anaesthesia, the pigs were allowed access to water but denied access to food for 12 hours. All of these procedures were carefully monitored by a veterinary surgeon. All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work. In this particular case, reduction was achieved by minimising the numbers of animals used through focused experimental design; the work was terminated when the specific scientific question of the effect of the drug had been answered. The results were published in `Resuscitation', a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All work is also undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

20 December 2000

Reference

360 c180-1W; 142130;142129

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the procedure used in the Sarin experiments on marmosets at Porton Down; and how the monkeys' welfare was protected; if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the Sarin experiments conducted on marmosets at...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 December 2000

For answer on

20 December 2000

Answered on

20 December 2000

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedure used in the Sarin experiments on marmosets at Porton Down; and how the monkeys' welfare was protected; [142128] (2) if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the Sarin experiments conducted on marmosets at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [142127] Dr. Moonie: [holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving the marmoset model to investigate whether a low dose of sarin disrupted performance of behavioural tests at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing `cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration. The marmosets lived in established male/female pairs in a housing system of interlinked cages. Behavioural tests were presented daily on a touch-sensitive screen in front of their home cage. Animals were always free to choose whether or not to engage in the task. This test battery was specifically devised to `bridge the gap' between non-human primate research and human studies. Each correct response was rewarded with a small quantity of banana milkshake which was not routinely fed as part of their varied and nutritionally complete diet. During performance of the task, the animal's electroencephalography (EEG) was measured by means of a surgically implanted radiotelemetry device. This technique represents a significant refinement in terms of animal welfare and does not involve the restraint of the animal. Once implanted, the data collection system did not interfere with the animals' freedom. Following administration of the sarin, animals were closely observed by experienced staff and no clinical signs were detected either in the short-term or over the duration of the study. The research team was supported by dedicated animal care staff and a highly experienced veterinary surgeon throughout the study. The techniques developed in the course of this work represent a significant advance in both animal welfare and scientific quality. This research involving marmosets has demonstrated that exposure to a single, low dose of the nerve agent sarin did not disrupt performance of a complex behavioural test and did not produce significant changes in brain electrical activity. These techniques have more widespread applicability in a number of areas of civilian research, notably in the investigation of neurodegenerative disorders. All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work. All work involving the use of animals at the CBE Porton Down is also undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office. In addition to the statutory controls, an independent body, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), reviews the arrangements for animal care and welfare at DERA sites, monitors the research programmes to ensure standards are the highest possible and advises on best practice.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

20 December 2000

Reference

360 c181-2W; 142128;142127

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria are used to classify a project 1 procedure under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as being likely to be of substantial severity; and if he will make a statement; how many procedure 1 projects under the Animals...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

31 October 2000

For answer on

8 November 2000

Answered on

8 November 2000

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria are used to classify a project 1 procedure under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as being likely to be of substantial severity; and if he will make a statement; [136599] (2) how many procedure 1 projects under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as a proportion of the total, were in the substantial severity category for each of the last 10 years. [136600] Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 sets out the criteria for determining severity levels. Two different types of severity levels are set on project licences; a severity limit for each protocol authorised in the licence and an overall severity banding for the project. The severity limit for each protocol is determined by the upper limit of the expected adverse effects that may be encountered by a protected animal, taking into account the measures specified in the licence for avoiding and controlling these effects. It represents the worst potential outcome for any animal subjected to the protocol, even if it may only be, and often is, experienced by a small number of the animals to be used. Indeed, it may never be encountered. Protocols of substantial severity may result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These include: acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of anti-microbial agents and vaccines; major surgery; and some models of disease, where welfare may be seriously compromised. If it is expected that even one animal would suffer substantial effects, the procedure would merit a substantial severity limit. The Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated. Licence holders are required by conditions in both project and personal licences to minimise any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and to approach the set severity limit only when absolutely necessary. The assessment of the overall severity of a project reflects the cumulative effect of each procedure. This assessment is used to weigh the likely adverse effects on all the animals to be used against the benefit likely to accrue. It takes into account not just the level of suffering that might be reached, but also such factors as the number of animals involved; the frequency of use of each procedure; the proportion of animals that are expected to be exposed to the upper severity limits; and the length of time that animals will experience such adverse effects. The severity bandings of project licences were introduced into the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in 1998 at Appendix B. Figures before that date were not published in the annual statistics, but were generally included as part of the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee. Figures are as follows: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Number Project Licences issued during 1991 Substantial 11 Total 685 Project Licences issued during 1992 Substantial 33 Total 1,257 Project Licences issued during 1993 Substantial 21 Total 1,444 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1994 Substantial not readily available Total 4,013 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1995 Substantial 72 Total 3,977 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1996 Substantial 66 Total 3,869 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1997 Substantial 66 Total 3,765 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1998 Substantial 66 Total 3,650 Project Licences in force on 31 December 1999 Substantial 66 Total 3,481 _________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

8 November 2000

Reference

356 c253-4W; 136599;136600

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey of 15th May 2000, 350 c53W, on animal experiments, whether the review of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1966 in the context of freedom of...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 June 2000

Reference

125902; 351 c534W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many investigations were carried out in 1999 under the Animal Scientific Procedures Act 1986; how many of these revealed that a criminal offence had been committed; and if he will make a statement. - Includes figure and ref to...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 March 2000

Reference

346 c488W;346 c486W; 115732

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the honourable Member for North Warwickshire of 2nd February to the honourable Member for Lewes, on xenotransplantation, what disposal methods are authorised for meat from pigs subject to xenotransplantation procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986;...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

15 February 2000

For answer on

22 February 2000

Answered on

22 February 2000

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) of 2 February to the hon. Member for Lewes, on xenotransplantation, what disposal methods are authorised for meat from pigs subject to xenotransplantation procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if such meat is deemed suitable for human consumption. [111049] Mr. Denham: [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Home Office Code of Practice for the Humane Killing of Animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 lists appropriate methods for the killing of animals regulated by the Act and advice on disposal of carcases. Meat from genetically modified animals, such as those used in some xenotransplantation procedures, cannot enter the food chain without approval under the Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulations (258/7). Genetically modified animals would fall within the category of "foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms within the meaning of Directive 90/220/EEC". Before approval could be granted an application would have to be made within the European Union seeking clearance for meat from such animals to be placed on the market. Any application would have to demonstrate that the meat was safe for human consumption. No applications under the Novel Food Regulations have been made relating to meat from animals used in xenotransplantation procedures.

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Date

22 February 2000

Reference

344 c912W; 111049

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to repeal section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 November 1999

Reference

99122; 339 c77W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if his Department's mouse-breeding facilities conform to the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. - (Holding answer 26 July 1999).

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 July 1999

Reference

93074; 336 c366W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list the dates since 1st July 1998 when the named veterinary surgeon appointed under section 7(5)(b) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 visited Harlan UK Ltd, indicating which visits were announced and which unannounced; and on...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

5 July 1999

Reference

89533; 334 c332W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher