Commercial Breeding for Laboratories Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and
Wallington) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has considered
e-petition 611810, relating to commercial breeding for
laboratories. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Efford. The prayer of the petition states: “Revoke all licences
(PEL) for commercial breeders of laboratory animals. Require all
Project Licences (PPLs) applications be reviewed by an independent
Non...Request free trial
Commercial Breeding for
Laboratories
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 611810, relating to
commercial breeding for laboratories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The
prayer of the petition states:
“Revoke all licences (PEL) for commercial breeders of laboratory
animals. Require all Project Licences (PPLs) applications be
reviewed by an independent Non Animal Methods (NAMs) specialist
committee. Revise s24 ASPA 1986 to allow review. Urge
International Regulators to accept & promote NAMs. We believe
the use of animals is scientifically, ethically, morally and
financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable. Defined in 1959, UK
law enshrines the principles of the 3Rs. The UK must abandon
these old principles and focus on the development and use of Non
Animal Methods. Having an independent NAMs specialist committee
review applications for Project Licences (PPLs) prior to their
approval, so that a licence is only granted if there is no
replacement method. Commercial breeders of laboratory animals are
profit rather than animal-welfare focused.”
The petition received over 102,000 signatures and counting,
including 144 from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency.
I thank the petition creators for taking the time to come and
speak to me about why they set up the petition and why they
thought it was so important. I also thank everyone who signed the
petition and in particular everyone in the Public Gallery.
The inspiration for the petition, while broadly focused on the
policy of animal testing, relates to an individual case, which I
am sure hon. Members will want to reference, of the ongoing
peaceful protest organised by Camp Beagle of a laboratory just
outside of Cambridge. Activists have been sitting outside the MBR
Acres site in Cambridgeshire for over 18 months. The petition is
another way of supporting those trying to raise awareness of
commercial breeding and animal testing. The petition creator also
took the time to tell me that this is a first step in a campaign
to try to change the law so that animals in facilities such as
MBR Acres are protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, instead
of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which they
currently fall under. There is a lot of interest in the debate,
so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that
everyone can have a say. I will set out the current regulations
and processes for animal testing in the UK, before talking about
the asks of the petition in more detail.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires research
establishments to use scientifically satisfactory non-animal
methods wherever possible. The premise of my speech is the fact
that this requirement is not being properly enforced or
regulated. The UK legal framework should ensure accordance with
the principles of the three Rs, which stand for replacement,
reduction and refinement. Under the law, a licence cannot be
granted to a testing laboratory unless the Home Office is
satisfied that a non-animal approach could not give the desired
scientific answer. Applicants are asked to demonstrate that they
have considered non-animal alternatives for the tests they
propose to do, but in reality this is treated more like a
box-ticking exercise, providing only the most cursory
information, such as how opportunities to replace animal testing
with non-animal methods were considered. The application is then
evaluated by one of a very small number of inspectors—a medical
doctor or veterinarian who is not necessarily an expert in that
area of testing—and inspectors often have a background in animal
testing themselves.
The reality is that applications are very unlikely to be refused.
According to some research, no licences were refused for animal
experimentation between 2018 and 2021. That is a problem, because
analysis of the licences granted during the first half of 2020
showed that researchers often failed to adequately explain their
strategy to search for non-animal methods. In one example, only a
one-word answer was given on the application. Simply put, the
legal framework to uphold the principle of the three Rs is not
being effectively enforced. The implications of that cannot be
overstated.
I came across a shocking statistic when preparing for this
debate. In 2021, over 3 million scientific procedures were
conducted on animals. If that figure was not large enough
already, it was a 6% increase on the year before. The use of dogs
increased by 3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. I
can only speculate why those increases occurred. Will the
Minister share any data collected by the Home Office on the
reasons for that increase? It seems counter-productive, because
only a small proportion of animal experiments are conducted to
satisfy regulatory requirements. In 2021 again, around 21% of
experimental procedures fell into that category. That is a really
low number.
A recent report from the animals in science regulation unit
described deeply troubling animal welfare failings in British
laboratories between 2019 and 2021. I am sure colleagues have
been sent videos, pictures and links to many of them, especially
regarding the MBR Acres site in Cambridgeshire. Those failings
include a non-human primate dying after becoming trapped behind a
restraint device, boxes of 112 rats being moved in error to a
compacter, where they were crushed alive, and numerous incidents
of animals being left without food or water.
In my view, the UK cannot claim to have high standards of animal
testing welfare when we allow animals to die of starvation,
suffocation or asphyxiation—whether they are used for testing or
whether they become one of the numbered surplus that get
slaughtered every year. To give some numbers on that, in 2017,
1.81 million animals were either bred for laboratory use and
discarded as surplus, or killed for their body parts to be used
for testing.
On a more positive note, the number of procedures being carried
out by commercial organisations has fallen, although the number
conducted by medical schools has risen. For example, 60% of
procedures were commercial in 1988, compared with just 27% in
2020. However, no information is published about which
establishments are primarily engaged in the breeding and creating
of genetically altered animals, as opposed to experimental
procedures.
The Government stopped publishing detailed information on
procedures by establishment type in 2021. That means we do not
truly know how many surplus animal deaths there have been. To be
clear, that is animals bred only to be killed without any
testing. This used to happen under an EU regulation, but since
leaving the European Union, the UK is not required to publish
statistics on the number of animals that die within the system
without having undergone any testing procedures.
Currently, aside from the annual publication of non-technical
summaries for projects granted licences for regulated animal
research procedures, the Home Office is not obliged to release
details of licence applications. Some information is actually
prevented from release under section 24 of the Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That lack of transparency is
concerning. A Government consultation took place way back in 2014
to consider amending that legislation, but no action has been
taken since and the consultation results remain unpublished.
Section 24 prevents an open debate and wider scientific scrutiny
of the use of animals in research. I hope that the Minister can
update us on the Government’s position on the future use of
section 24.
(East Kilbride, Strathaven
and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out this extremely
important issue to the House. Does he agree that it is crucial
that the work taken forward should be based on evidence, and that
as such we should have a public scientific hearing, as I called
for in early-day motion 278, with support from Peter Egan, Ricky
Gervais and the Betsy Beagle campaign, For Life On Earth? We must
take forward this issue, but it has to be based on science, and
we therefore need a scientific hearing to find the evidence
base.
I absolutely agree. The prayer of the petition calls for the
establishment of a non-animal methods committee to look into this
very issue. I hope we will hear some positive remarks on
that.
The number of animal laboratory inspectors remains very low, with
just 23 full-time equivalents in 2021. This is particularly
concerning as the vast majority of non-compliances continue to be
self-reported, rather than discovered through a series of
inspections. Last year, the chief executive of the Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals resigned from the
animals in science regulation unit, citing concerns about the
lack of in-person visits to animal testing sites by
inspectors.
With so many procedures taking place—again, there were more than
3 million in 2021—and with so few inspectors and so much
self-reporting, it leads one to question whether the picture of
animal testing welfare in the UK is actually accurate. Could the
Minister provide us with more information on the steps the
Government are taking to increase the number of inspectors?
Surely, 23 full-time inspectors looking at more than 3 million
procedures cannot be enough.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
My hon. Friend presents a worrying situation caused by having so
few animal inspectors. The UK used to lead the world in animal
testing, banning animal testing for cosmetics some 15 years
before the EU. Does he agree that we should use this opportunity
to once again make the UK a world leader by banning animal
testing and ensuring that the NAMs come forward?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK led the way on banning
the use of animals for cosmetic testing. Indeed, just in this
Parliament, we have passed so much animal welfare legislation.
This issue does seem to be a glaring omission that I believe we
should look at.
We can debate the merits or otherwise of animal testing in the
past, but there is growing evidence and a growing consensus in
the scientific community that we are reaching—if we have not
already reached—the limit of any research potential of animal
testing. There has been a lack of progress in many key areas of
health that concern all of us, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s
and many other diseases, especially cancer. Animal
experimentation is cited as playing a major role in the slow rate
of progress, due to the significant biological differences
between species, which prevent the translation of findings from
animals to humans.
(Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful presentation. On that point,
is it not increasingly the case that animal experimentation is
just bad science and, worse still, is actually hindering the
development of treatments that benefit humankind? On both scores,
it is something we should be consigning to the history books.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence demonstrates
that animal testing has very little benefit. I think we are in
the single figures when we look at the percentage of tests that
have gone from being successful in animals to successful in
humans. It is a waste of money, and we should therefore
increasingly be looking to consign animal testing to the dustbin
of history. To give a further example, a 2019 study found that it
could not recommend any animal model that could reliably predict
the efficacy of potential treatments for Alzheimer’s, which is
one of the largest health challenges facing this country.
Finally, I want to talk about what the petition is calling for—a
NAMs committee—and expand a little on what NAMs, or non-animal
methods, are. Because of technological advancements, NAMs have
the power not only to replace animal testing but to improve the
robustness of the testing that we do, provide more accurate
results and be more cost-effective. They are directly relevant to
human patients, so they are much more likely to provide the
scientific and medical breakthroughs that we are looking for than
animal testing. There is growing evidence that NAMs are able to
predict potential harms to patients from new drugs that were not
identified by animal tests. For example, a recent study found
that Emulate’s liver-on-chips were able to correctly identify 87%
of drugs that caused drug-induced liver injury to patients
despite passing through animal testing. University of Oxford
researchers have developed an animal-free model of stroke by
using organ-on-a-chip technology. They were able to replicate the
blood-brain barrier and mimic a stroke, which creates new
possibilities for testing stroke drugs in human cells.
Without regulatory change, the Government could create a NAMs
committee to ensure that the UK legal framework is enforced. An
independent NAMs specialist committee could review applications
for project licences prior to approval so that a licence is
granted only if there truly is no replacement method. If the
committee felt that that was not the case, it could refer the
application back to the applicant, and those assessing it, with
advice on where to find appropriate NAMs to meet the research or
testing need. That would help to ensure that, as the 1986 Act
stipulates, animal testing licences are granted only if there are
no appropriate replacements, and it would promote the wider use,
research and development of NAMs. A NAMs committee could be
constructed in the same way as the existing, animals in science
committee: as an advisory, non-departmental public body that is
sponsored by the Home Office. Members would be independent NAMs
experts who represent a wide range of expertise.
Those proposals are not something that I or the petition creators
have picked out of thin air; they are already being implemented
across the world. The most recent development came just in
December last year, when US President Biden signed the FDA
Modernisation Act 2.0, which will make it easier for researchers
to choose non-animal testing methods. I strongly believe that if
the US can do it, we can do it too—and make a success of it.
I reiterate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley
() mentioned, our
fantastic record of implementing animal welfare reforms,
including the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the
Ivory Act 2018, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which
increased the maximum penalties for animal cruelty, and so much
more. However, this issue is a glaring omission. I hope that the
Minister can update the House on what steps her Department is
taking to address problems surrounding commercial breeding, what
investigations there are into the MBR Acres site, and what
consideration she has given to establishing a NAMs committee, so
that the UK can finally adopt the three Rs, adhere to the letter
of the 1986 Act and move away from animal exploitation in favour
of innovation.
(in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob—be on their feet—if they
wish to be called. I will not impose a fixed time limit at the
moment, but roughly six minutes per speech should see us
comfortably home and allow time for the Front-Bench spokespeople
and to wind up.
4.48pm
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() on his excellent opening
speech.
It might come as a surprise—it certainly did to me—that animal
experimentation is on the increase in the UK. As we have heard,
according to the Government’s own figures, in 2021 over 3 million
scientific procedures were conducted on animals in Great Britain,
which is an increase of 6% on 2020. The use of dogs increased by
3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. Some 80% of
experiments on animals were for research-only purposes.
Commercial breeding exists to meet the demands and needs of this
industry in animal experimentation; without that demand,
commercial breeding would not exist, and there would be no need
to have this debate.
I think it is fair to say that when I talk to members of the
public about this issue, those who do accept animal research
think that we have to have it because it is the only option and
it really benefits humans. They therefore support commercial
breeding for the same reason. However, I think most of those
people are unaware that, when it comes to treatment for humans,
there is a growing body of evidence that animal procedures
produce poor-quality results, and in some cases can actually hold
back progress.
Scientific progress has shown us that many assumptions we held as
common sense were wrong; the discovery of DNA and the sequencing
of entire genomes has shown the amazing close relatedness between
the genetic make-up of different mammals. However, when it comes
to how those genes actually function—the internal chemistry of
animals—our common-sense assumption that humans are not the same
as mice, dogs, monkeys, cats, or any other animals used in
scientific research and testing, has proven correct. While
supporters of animal experiments will point to the successes of
the development of the cancer drug Herceptin and diabetic
insulin, there are failures as well, such as TGN1412, where a
dose 500 times smaller than the “safe and effective” dose used in
animals killed five human subjects, and Vioxx; relying solely on
its results when tested on monkeys resulted in the deaths of, and
injuries to, nearly 8,000 people.
To be of value, a research method must prove reliably predictive
results. Animal methods fail to do that, for a number of reasons.
Major differences exist between species, relating to anatomy,
organ structure and function, metabolism, chemical absorption,
genetics and lifespan. A homogenous group of animals living in a
controlled experimental setting cannot predict varied human
patients with their individual life histories and wide range of
environmental factors. Artificially created diseases in animals
in laboratories cannot accurately reflect naturally occurring
human illnesses. Common adverse reactions from humans, such as
nausea, mental disturbance, dizziness, fatigue, depression,
confusion and double vision, cannot be detected in animals.
A number of articles have been published in The BMJ and elsewhere
criticising the lack of any systematic review of the efficacy of
using animals in biomedical research. In fact, a bias in favour
of animal research has been shown to be holding back progress in
some areas—we have already heard the example of Alzheimer’s
treatments. I fear that millions of pounds and tens of thousands
of hours of research may have been wasted on a scientific dead
end, but worse than the time and money wasted: a drug that
damages animals in early tests and is therefore abandoned could
be safe and effective in humans. Valuable drugs that were nearly
lost because of their toxicity in animals include the breast
cancer drug Tamoxifen and the leukaemia drug Gleevec.
We cannot know how many potential treatments have been overlooked
in this way, but thankfully, as we have heard, there are
alternatives that focus on human biological processes to
investigate disease and potential treatments. Those use human
cells, tissues and organs, and existing data and technologies
such as organ-on-a-chip technology or artificial intelligence,
along with other procedures. They are called the new approach
methodologies. By providing results that are directly relevant to
human patients, NAMs are much more likely to generate
breakthroughs than outdated animal-based techniques.
NAMs and human-relevant research is a fast-growing sector, and
one in which the UK has the potential to be right at the
forefront of innovation, leading the way. At the University of
Oxford, for example, Dr Paul Holloway has developed a new,
animal-free model of stroke, as we have just heard. Using
organ-on-a-chip technology, he was able to replicate the human
blood-brain barrier and mimic stroke, enabling new possibilities
to test stroke drugs in human cells. A 2021 report by the Centre
for Economics and Business Research predicted that the UK NAM
industry could contribute £2.5 billion to UK GDP by 2026, an
increase of 700% from 2017. There is so much that the Government
could and should be doing to promote that area of technology.
I support three of the proposals from Animal Free Research UK,
which has urged Members to speak in this debate: to produce an
action plan for encouraging the widespread adoption of
human-relevant research techniques; to launch a well-resourced
programme of practical support and training to improve awareness
and knowledge of human-relevant techniques; and to provide
funding to improve the human relevance of research on a scale
that reflects the urgency and importance of the issue.
I urge the Minister to take whatever steps she can to move
research away from the cruel, wasteful and unhelpful focus on
animal experimentation, and towards a future of new technologies
and research methods focused on human modelling that are better
for us, better for animals and better for our economy.
4.55pm
(Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I
thank the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition. I
know there was some anxiety among them that we would not do
justice to it today, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington () and my hon. Friend the
Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle () for doing it more than
justice. There appears to be a degree of consensus in the room,
and I hope the Minister does not let us down at the end of the
debate but indicates the way forward.
Breeding animals solely for the purpose of animal testing all too
often condemns them to a life of suffering, culminating in a
painful death. As we have heard, conditions in such breeding
facilities have been shown to be unhygienic and cruel, with the
animals exhibiting signs of extreme stress and frustration. That
is just in the breeding facilities, and we know that the animals
then go on to the laboratory, where who knows what they will have
to endure. I do not want to repeat the stats and everything my
colleagues have said, but I do want to endorse the point that the
three Rs are clearly not working as they should, particularly
when it comes to replacing animals in testing.
I do not think we will see a “big bang” moment at which animal
testing just stops, so I want to focus on the five incremental
steps where swift progress is possible. There is really no excuse
not to act. First, we know that not all animal experiments are
conducted for the purposes of medical research; many animals are
still used in the development and testing of products such as
food additives and pesticides. At one uni, researchers tested
cannabis on, I think, rats to see whether it gave them the
munchies—given that they were based at a university, I do not
think they really needed to test on animals to come to a
conclusion on that! After the ban on using animals for cosmetics
testing, and the more recent ban on using them to test household
products, will the Minister tell us what is next? Let us keep
moving the issue forward.
Secondly, the Government could restrict the types of tests that
are licensed. Colleagues of a similar age to me will remember the
campaign to outlaw the infamous Draize test, whereby toxic
substances were dripped into the eyes, or on to the skin, of
healthy rabbits. I have recently had several robust discussions
with Bristol University about its use of the forced swim test on
mice to induce anxiety, fear and stress—all to collect data of
questionable quality. That raises another point, which has come
up in some of the figures that have been mentioned: is scientific
curiosity a good enough reason to carry out endless tests on
animals that do not actually yield results? Surely they should be
used only when trying to reach a conclusion, not just out of
curiosity.
Thirdly, the Government could build on the success of the primate
testing ban by restricting the range of animals that can be
tested on. As we have heard, MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire
continues to breed 2,000 beagles each year, solely for animal
testing. Beagles, as opposed to other dogs, are favoured for this
kind of toxicity testing precisely because of their docile,
compliant nature. They are either injected or force-fed poisonous
chemicals, and they are asphyxiated before an autopsy is
conducted to assess the effects on them. Dogs bred for testing
have also been forced to inhale pesticides or have been
deliberately given heart attacks. We have also heard that cats,
horses and monkeys are still being used. I do not think any of my
constituents would support the continued testing on beagles, and
we could have a quick win on this issue if we outlawed that.
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, especially on the types of
animals being used. It is abhorrent not only that dogs such as
beagles and others, and horses, are used but that, as we have
heard, they are increasingly being used. Some 3% more dogs, and
more than 20% more horses, have been tested on this year. Does
the hon. Lady agree that, with the physiology of these animals
being so different from that of humans, we should not be
increasing the number of dogs and horses that we are testing on?
Does she agree that we should ban testing on dogs and horses?
I entirely agree.
Fourthly, we could reduce the number of licences issued by simply
encouraging greater transparency. We have heard about section 24
of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington said that from 2018 to 2021, every
licence that was applied for was granted, but we need to know the
figures; they need to be out in the public domain.
We also need to avoid duplication. I know that commercial
interests come into play, but, particularly with the UK leaving
REACH—the EU’s chemicals regulatory regime—there is a real danger
that we could end up with even more tests having to be carried
out when they are already being done elsewhere. I know that
campaigners and scientists have called for data sharing, but it
is just not happening.
Again, the Government have been very slow to respond. The
Environmental Audit Committee did an inquiry into chemicals
regulation post Brexit, which was notable mainly because the now
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the
right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), suggested that
the British version of REACH should be called BREACH, which would
not be ideal for a regulator. I hope the Minister can say a
little about that.
My fifth and final point relates to what everyone has been saying
about the development of NAMs and alternatives. I will not
rehearse the arguments that have already been made about
effectiveness, but I have certainly spoken about how effective
animal testing is, as opposed to the non-animal methods that are
being developed. Queen Mary University of London has set up its
own unit. When I spoke to scientists who are involved in that, it
was clear that there are real experts in the field who support a
move away from animal testing and do not think it is effective. I
will conclude on that point.
As I said, I am not expecting the Minister to say today that she
is going to declare an end to animal testing. We want to see the
three Rs—which have been Labour policy for a long time—being
properly enforced, and I have suggested some ways in which she
could make some progress in that regard.
5.01pm
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() for leading today’s debate
on this important topic, and the 102,230 members of the British
public that signed e-petition 611810, including 137 from my
constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
The petition raises a crucial point when we think about animal
testing. The breeding of animals specifically for this purpose
may not immediately cross our minds. It is interesting and
concerning that the Government’s response to the petition did not
address this point. The text of the petition itself raises an
important consideration about the model used in the UK:
“We believe the use of animals is scientifically, ethically,
morally and financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable.”
With the use of animal testing so completely out of step with the
large majority of public opinion, the financial aspect—the part
taxpayer money has to play in funding continued animal
experiments—should not be overlooked. The Government need to
reconsider their position on this matter.
As an animal lover, laboratory testing of animals is an issue I
feel strongly about, as do many of my constituents. That is why I
tabled an Adjournment debate on the matter just before Christmas
2021. It is why I am also very disappointed to see a continued
lack of nuance in the Government’s stance. At the close of the
Home Office’s reply to this petition, it states:
“The Government is clear that the use of animals in science is
justified, for the benefits it brings to human, animal and
environmental health and safety.”
I am disappointed to be here almost 13 months exactly from my
Adjournment debate, in which I covered the unpredictability of
animal testing results when replicated in human medicine trials,
to have to labour the same points once again. Let me be clear: it
is well documented that animal trials cannot reliably predict, or
translate to, outcomes for humans. One might think this would be
common sense; as a species, we are inherently different to the
animals tested on. That has been shown time and again by experts
in detailed and peer-reviewed research, and in relation to a huge
number of diseases, including—I will give just a small
sample—diabetes, cardiovascular disease and HIV. About 100 HIV
vaccines have been tested on animals and zero work in humans. In
fact, Dr Richard Klausner of the National Cancer Institute
said:
“We have cured mice of cancer for decades—and it simply didn’t
work in humans.”
Even if we did not care about the suffering of the animals tested
on, which I am sure is not the case for almost everyone, how can
anyone justify the money and time wasted on seeking out cures and
treatments through methods that we know do not work? Even if we
take away all the reported issues with the scrutiny given to
licence applications and the reliability of results, the key
thing I cannot understand is why we are still relying on a
legislative framework passed in 1986.
Investment into research and more sophisticated non-animal
reliant methods and technologies is overdue. It is not acceptable
that in 2021, 161,000 animals were involved in procedures judged
“severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harm caused. It is not
acceptable that the Government view that as a necessary evil. It
is not necessary, and a solution requires just a little more
thinking and work.
I hope the Minister will provide a commitment that the Government
will look seriously at this issue, and urgently publish a
strategy that will see animal testing phased out and other
methods better funded and researched. I hope she will acknowledge
that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and that
continued state-licensed animal experimentation is a stain on the
reputation of the UK, which is at the forefront of animal welfare
issues. The UK prides itself on being a leader in the animal
welfare space. If we do not adapt and change immediately, we will
fall behind our international allies; we already are falling
behind.
5.06pm
(Coventry North West)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington () for introducing this
e-petition debate. I also thank the 170 constituents of mine from
Coventry North West who signed the e-petition.
Let me be unequivocal: Britain must reclaim its position at the
forefront of animal rights protection. For years, this crucial
issue has been sidelined. Key legislation, such as the Animal
Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the animals abroad Bill have gone
missing without a trace. We cannot allow the same to happen with
animal testing.
I am proud that our country outlawed the testing of cosmetics on
animals in 1997. Although it was long overdue, it was a welcome
achievement. However, over the past two decades, technological
advances have changed the testing landscape dramatically, so it
is time the law caught up. With fewer than 3 million procedures a
year, animal testing is at its lowest ever level since 2004, and
more humane and non-animal alternatives are used to achieve the
same end. Many Members have spoken about the alternatives.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, I
have no intention to oppose legitimate medical research. However,
as the RSPCA said, far too many animals are still being put
through experiments that do not constitute vital medical
research. Most concerning of all is severe suffering, whereby
animals are subjected to the highest level of pain, debility or
death in the name of research. Although there has been
significant progress in recent years, with a 61% drop in the
number of procedures causing severe suffering carried out in the
UK since 2014, we need a cast-iron commitment to ending the
procedure all together.
The time for action is now. A generation on from the achievements
of the 1990s, we need a fundamental and binding review of the
entire field of animal testing. Only a root and branch, searching
inquiry will protect animals in the short term and prevent their
use in testing in the long term, as more and more alternatives
are developed. Equally, as we set goals for the future, we cannot
neglect the animals that are suffering as we speak, so a review
must also commit to examining conditions as they are today, and
it should review the situation at Camp Beagle.
Despite the progress that has been made, I am deeply concerned
that animal rights are on the verge of a dramatic leap backwards.
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could wipe
thousands of vital regulations from our statute book overnight.
That means that the ban on testing cosmetics on animals may be
brought to a sudden end. More and more of my constituents are
concerned about the dangerous pattern they see emerging from the
Government’s action on animal welfare. New laws, long promised,
are dropped the moment the spotlight moves to the next issue
dominating the front pages. Even those that manage to slip
through the net and reach the statute book are frequently watered
down with enforcement mechanisms that nobody could honestly
believe are transparent or effective. All that is taking place
against a backdrop of a flurry of vital laws that are due to be
jettisoned with no democratic oversight whatever.
Animal research and testing cannot be swept under the rug any
longer, so I urge the Government to seek a compassionate and
thorough understanding of the science and the consequences for
both animals and people alike. Going backwards cannot be an
option. As science makes more and more research possible without
the need to involve animals, it is our duty in this place to
react and ensure that the law keeps up.
5.10pm
(Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and to
take part in the debate, which is of great concern to many of our
constituents. I am here on behalf of the 169 people in and around
Canterbury who signed the petition, and of those who contact me
regularly about animal welfare issues. I want to declare an
interest as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee and also as chair of the all-party parliamentary dog
advisory welfare group. At a recent meeting, we heard from people
who work for animal charities who outlined the trauma, abuse and
suffering that some dogs experience in the laboratory settings
used in commercial breeding. It is very traumatic to hear those
cases and to see the footage gained, often at risk to the people
who take it.
At first, “commercial breeding” as a singular term does not sound
too controversial. It sounds as though we allow dogs to give
birth and animals to be bred in order to save lives, and then
give those dogs to a loving family, but, once we have had our
eyes opened to the horrific practices that operate up and down
the United Kingdom, that cloak of innocence is soon removed. I
want to pay tribute to my friend Marc Abraham OBE, who arranges
the events for our APPG to bring together professionals from the
industry and to allow discussions to be had and strategies to be
created. That ensures that debates such as this take place in
which Members of Parliament have full knowledge of the
issues.
It is important to reiterate that of the 3.1 million procedures
conducted in 2021, 1.7 million were experimental procedures—often
a codeword for abusive practices—and 1.3 million were cases of
genetically altered animals. I acknowledge that there is a
difference between trying to prevent life-limiting disease and
experiments about whether rats get the munchies, as we have heard
before, or about whether hair conditioner makes our hair more
shiny, which, thankfully, are against the law now.
The annual statistics provided by the Government allow for
analysis of trends. However, I have concerns that the data
gathering does not record the type of establishment used—the data
previously showed that—and I would be grateful if the Minister
could outline whether there are any plans to re-commit to that
type of data collection.
The petition calls for a number of amendments to the Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, a 37-year-old piece of
legislation. Since then, we have of course had huge technological
advances. I hope the Minister will agree that it is time for a
new piece of legislation that not only addresses how state-of-the
art equipment is used when genetically engineering animals, but
how technology can help issue licensing and monitor the behaviour
and operations of commercial breeding with the aim of bringing
the cruellest aspect of that practice to an end.
With new technology being created every day, some of the
procedures that inflict the most pain and suffering on animals
such as beagles can now be simulated artificially through
computer modelling, non-invasive scanning methods and cell
cultures, to name a few. We have heard about AI as well. Those
new opportunities can lead to better animal welfare, which is
what the 102,000 members of the public who signed the petition,
and many more, demand of us. Let us end the outdated, unpopular
and barbaric procedures sooner rather than later and encourage
investment in NAMs, which we know are the future of medical
research.
5.14pm
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I am here today because three separate constituents have come to
my Friday surgery and opened my eyes to how the existing
framework in this country is ethically, practically, morally and
scientifically bankrupt. I pay tribute to the valiant protesters
at Camp Beagle who, for 18 months, have been outside the gates of
Marshall Bio Resources in Cambridgeshire—it is happening not too
far from here.
I was sent some secretly obtained footage of just a couple of
minutes, not highlights culled from several hours, and it was
concerning and upsetting to see the barbaric conditions that the
beagles are kept in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury
() said. Beagles are
good-natured animals who will not bite back, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Bristol East () pointed out. They are bred
in factory conditions, with no space to run around. They have
never experienced sunshine, wind, rain or any such things—no
natural light. I think there were some pictures of them eating
faeces, so God knows what diet they are given.
In those beagles’ lifetime, after 16 weeks—they are only babies,
puppies—they go to laboratories and who knows what happens. They
are injected with bleach, fertiliser and all such things, even at
that young age. They are sentient beings, just as we are, and
that should not continue. MBR Acres sounds quite nice, as if the
beagles are running around, gambolling in the fields, but that is
far from the case, and every time what happens to them is put to
MBR Acres, it says it is fully compliant with the law and a fully
licensed establishment. That law, however, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Canterbury pointed out, is the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986—but 1986 was a different world. Even I was
at school at then. How many Prime Ministers have we had since
then—okay, we have had three this year alone—and there was not
even the internet.
People ask: “What is the alternative?” We heard about NAMs, the
non-animal routes we should be going down, as was pointed out by
my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle
(). There is a better way of
doing things: cutting-edge technologies, modelling
three-dimension cell cultures, organs on chips, artificial
intelligence. That all harnesses scientific progress. Why are we
still stuck in 1986, when “The Chicken Song” by Spitting
Image—“Hold a chicken in the air”—was No. 1? It was a completely
different world.
The Cruelty Free International pressure group sets everything out
in a detailed plan. We could have a regulator, or even a
committee to mirror the Animals in Science Committee, a NAMs
committee that could monitor such things. ASPA, the 1986 Act,
sets out just bare-minimum guidelines, not even best practice,
for the care, transit, housing and killing of research animals.
We have two sites in this country: the Marshall Bio or MBR one,
and Envigo. If we look across the Atlantic at the USA, one of the
Envigo sites in America was closed recently because of gross
welfare violations. We were told that when we left the EU, we
would level up and have higher standards than anywhere else, but
that is very far from the truth and from what seems to be
happening.
I am also concerned about how protesters are demonised—as
recently as today—even though in this country we have a long
tradition of civil disobedience, with the suffragettes, the
Levellers, the Diggers and all such things. As a statement of MBR
Acres puts it:
“Unfortunately, extremists, including long-time activists, are
committing unlawful and dangerous activities each day.”
My constituent, Helen Cheese-Probert, is not what we might call a
troublemaker. She is a scientist by training, who came most
recently to my surgery on Friday. It is not only her; Ricky
Gervais, Will Young and Chris Packham are all on side as well. It
is not just the demonisation of protesters that worries me, but
the validity of animal experimentation for human conditions. Some
figures show that 95% of cases of things done to animals fail to
translate to human conditions, so why are we doing it? When our
kids are sick, we do not take them to the vet, do we? That stands
to reason.
It is time to deploy NAMs technology to its fullest extent and to
consign commercial breeding for animal experimentation—it just
sounds horrible—to the history books, to the scrapheap or dustbin
of the past. When people my age were kids we used to see videos
of monkeys being forced to smoke cigarettes, but now we think
that is totally barbaric and wrong.
I will end by saying that, as Gandhi put it, the greatness of a
nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals. There is a
lot of room for improvement and I look forward to hearing what
the Minister has to say about fixing this outmoded picture.
(in the Chair)
I thank all Members for being incredibly disciplined, as it has
made my job very easy. I call .
5.20pm
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Efford, and I am delighted
once again to lead for my party in this debate on calls to ban
commercial breeding for laboratories and to implement reform to
approve non-animal methodologies. I thank the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington () for opening it so
comprehensively.
Like many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, I am
one of the majority of people who believe that we need to act on
what is widely accepted as the unethical, cruel, immoral,
counter-productive and damaging use of animals in experiments, as
has been explained by Members from across the Chamber. We have,
of course, debated the subject before, most recently, I think, in
October 2021. We have debated it many times, but it keeps coming
back to us via the Petitions Committee, because it simply will
not go away. The huge number of people who repeatedly sign
petitions about the matter ensures that it will keep coming back
for debate unless and until common sense prevails—until science
prevails, as inevitably it must. However, we need that to happen
as soon as possible for a whole range of reasons, many of which
we have heard about today.
Before I go any further, I must thank all the organisations that
have provided such excellent briefings for today’s debate, such
as the Betsy, Beagle Ambassador For Life On Earth campaign; the
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or
FRAME; the RSPCA; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or
PETA; and a whole range of other organisations that have
campaigned on this issue for decades.
Animal experiments fail in the search for human treatment and
cures. Penicillin stayed on the shelf for over a decade because
the tests done on rabbits by that great Scot, Alexander Fleming,
led him to believe that it would be ineffective in humans. There
is a mountain of evidence to show that failure and that is why we
need a rigorous public scientific hearing to demonstrate it.
Anyone who wishes to argue the opposite, without any confidence
or credibility, should relish the opportunity to demonstrate
their views in the forum of a public scientific hearing.
We know that some Members of this House and some on the
Government Benches would argue in support of the status quo, yet
in the repeated debates that we have on the issue they never seem
to turn out to defend that position, except for the Minister, of
course, who has little choice in the matter. We have MPs in this
House who believe that the current situation is the correct one.
If that is genuinely a held view, it should be able to be
defended. If it cannot be defended, these things ought not to be
happening.
While we wait and push for change, the opportunities for the
treatment of and search for cures of terrible diseases such as
cancer are, according to the USA’s National Cancer Institute,
being lost, because studies in rodents have been believed. Far
from assisting and advancing the treatment of and cures for
terrible human diseases, which is what we all want to see, the
use of animals in experiments is actively frustrating that
end.
The problem with the petition calling for the NAMs specialist
committee is that the fear is that it would be able to act in
only an advisory capacity, whereas a public scientific hearing
would require animal researchers to prove their claims about the
efficacy of the use of animals in animal testing. A rigorous
scientific hearing would show that the arguments being made for
animal testing simply do not hold up to scrutiny.
Reducing licences and the range of animals on which tests can be
carried out is all very well and good, and they are important
steps, but we need to be much more stringent. The best way
forward—the only way forward—is a robust public scientific
hearing to secure the overhaul of the industry that so many of us
want to see. Of course, such an overhaul is challenging, because
we know that interests have grown up around it that, which defend
it even in the face of evidence that it is not really the best
way forward. It is certainly not the best way forward for
treating diseases or, indeed, for animals.
It is widely reported by experts that 90% of new medicines fail
to pass human trials because animals cannot predict human
responses. The former editor-in-chief of the British Medical
Journal has indicated that it is almost impossible to rely on
most animal data to predict whether an intervention will have a
favourable clinical benefit-risk in human subjects and, if that
continues to be the case, endorsement and funding of pre-clinical
animal research seems, at the very least, misplaced. That chimes
with the conclusions of Dr Richard Klausner, director of the
National Cancer Institute, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend
the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (), that we have cured mice
of cancer for decades, but it simply does not work in humans. In
the world of science and in the pharmaceutical industry it is
openly acknowledged that animal models on drug development simply
do not work.
We should have cause for optimism, however, because on 4 January
the Prime Minister delivered a speech. In that speech, he set out
his priorities for 2023 and declared that he wants to
“make this country a beacon of science”.
The UK of course comprises four nations, so I will generously
assume that he meant to say “the UK” and not “this country”.
Putting that aside, I look forward to his Government making good
on that commitment, following the science on the issue, taking
note of and acting on the significant body of science that tells
us that animal experiments are not helpful and, worse, can even
be obstructive as we seek to treat and cure a whole range of
human diseases.
It is worth recalling the remarks of Dr Lindsay Marshall, the
UK’s biomedical science adviser for the Humane Society
International, who said:
“The UK cannot expect to have world-leading science innovation
whilst we rely on failing animal-based research methods that are
rooted in the past.”
She said that,
“animal models are really bad at telling us what will happen in a
human body”
and are sometimes “dangerously misleading”. That is despite the
UK Government response to the petition indicating:
“The UK’s strengths in research and innovation put it at the
forefront of global science. The Government is committed to
supporting this science base”.
If we are following the science, there should not be a problem
after we have a robust scientific public hearing.
There was much excitement among campaigners recently when
President Biden signed into law the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the mandatory requirement
that US-based animal tests are used in human drug development.
That is a hugely significant step forwards, but animal data can
still be used if those who are developing drugs choose to use
them. There is no way round the fact that a public scientific
hearing would be enormously helpful and useful as a global
reference point for drug development.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act’s three Rs— replacement,
reduction and refinement—established in 1959 for humane
experimental techniques on animals, are a concept developed
decades ago to benefit individual experimental design, not to
address the need to understand and develop treatments for many
human diseases. The three Rs policy, as we have heard from hon.
Members, is not fit for the purpose of advancing scientific
progress through a shift to innovation without using animals.
A significant body of scientific thought believes there is urgent
and pressing need to modernise UK research to keep pace with
advancements. Far from the Prime Minister talking about being a
world leader, we need to modernise for that to be the case. That
requires redirecting resources from unreliable experiments on
animals and shifting to a focus more fully on superior,
non-animal methods that will benefit humans, animals and the
world of science. Otherwise, both animals and patients who are
waiting for treatments for terrible diseases will continue to be
failed by outdated methods. Could anybody argue that this picture
is compatible with the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming
a “beacon of science”?
This Government have accepted that animals are sentient beings,
and that principle is enshrined in law. However, it is a source
of deep frustration, disappointment, concern and even anger that
that recognition of sentience does not appear to extend to
animals in laboratories, which are subject to painful, cruel and
distressing procedures that are not necessary, and following
which the vast majority are killed. The recognition of sentience
must be extended to all animals through the Animal Welfare Act
2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, so they can be
protected by the unnecessary suffering clause.
We are often told that the experiments to which animals are
subjected are not crucial to the development of any new human
medicines. On the contrary, those experiments are failing the
search for human treatments and cures, as is shown by unequivocal
evidence and is widely reported in the peer-reviewed medical
literature. We have heard today that the regulatory requirement
that animals be used in tests before proceeding to human trials
was first established in 1946 in the Nuremberg code. Since then,
science has advanced by 77 years, so why are we still using
outdated laws to govern human medical research practice? Where
else has that happened—that there has been no change in 77 years?
It is nonsensical and indefensible.
Our EU partners are moving away from animal experiments. We need
a rigorous, public, scientific and transparent hearing, so that
we can have a full scientific debate on the reasons for banning
animal experiments, where those who disagree can present their
evidence for doing so in a transparent and public forum. As I
keep asking, why would those who defend the current position shy
away from that level of transparency? If those of us who wish to
see an end to animal experiments are correct in our views and
beliefs and in the evidence that is presented, that will
accelerate the arrival of human treatments and cures, while also
freeing animals from the cruel and unnecessary fate that awaits
them in laboratories.
I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet, she will have
taken full cognisance of the very powerful and reasoned arguments
made across the Chamber today, and will respond by telling us how
her Government have every intention of moving away from the use
of animal experiments, as our EU neighbours are doing. I hope
that she and her Government will mandate a rigorous public
scientific hearing on this matter, which will show transparently
and beyond doubt that lab animal models are not capable of
predicting the response of human patients, as well as the need to
ensure that all creatures are recognised as sentient beings in
the Animal Welfare and Animal Welfare (Sentience) Acts. That is
what the vast majority of the population across the UK wants to
happen, and it is long past time that this Government acted.
5.33pm
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and
to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (), who made a compelling
case for putting science first that should guide us all today. I
thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington () for what I thought was an
excellent speech, setting out the petition and its aims and the
context in which we are having this debate; I also thank the
102,000 people who signed the petition, as other Members have,
including the 128 in Croydon Central who did so. As a shadow Home
Office Minister, I deal with immigration, police and security.
Those issues dominate a lot of our time in this place, and it is
good that members of the public push us to talk more about
animals and animal welfare, because otherwise, I suspect we would
not talk about them nearly often enough.
The e-petition we have debated calls on the Government to ban
commercial breeding for laboratories, an issue that the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington set out in some detail. As
the Labour Front Bencher in this debate, I want to be clear that
the Labour party believes that the unnecessary and prolonged
suffering of defenceless animals has absolutely no place in a
civilised society. That is part of the DNA of our party, and the
history of our party is tied to the defence and protection of
animal rights.
It is nearly 20 years since the Hunting Act 2004, when the Labour
Government ended the cruel practice of hunting with dogs—a clear
testament to the progress made since the days of bear-baiting,
cockfighting and other awful things. The year 2006 saw the Animal
Welfare Act, another landmark piece of legislation that put down
serious protections in law for pets, livestock and wild animals
alike. We introduced the offence of unnecessary suffering,
mutilation and animal fighting, and we promised to end the
testing of cosmetics on animals in our manifesto back in
1997.
The last Labour Government were, I like to think, the most
animal-friendly this country has seen, and working from the
foundations laid by our predecessors, that is what we would hope
to be again if we were to get back into Government. This country
should lead the world with high animal welfare standards. No
animal should suffer unnecessary pain and degradation. It is not
a binary decision to be for animal welfare or human welfare; they
can and should exist alongside each other. Many hon. Members have
set that out very clearly in the debate today.
It is welcome that animal testing practices have improved over
many years and advanced over recent years, but as we have heard
today we are seeing an increase in testing on some animals. I am
concerned about the lack of transparency on animal testing
project licence applications as well as the continued
permissibility of “severe suffering” as defined in UK law. We
heard that in 2021 there were over 3 million procedures involving
living animals. Of those, around 1.7 million were experimental
procedures on living animals, and the remaining 1.3 million were
cases of the breeding and creation of genetically-altered
animals. Over 160,000 animals were involved in procedures judged
as “severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harms caused. Some
still argue that research on animals is a necessary evil and a
key tool for scientific process, but as times, science and views
all change, so too must our behaviour.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which we have heard
much about, is now considered way out of date for modern animal
welfare standards and is not properly enforced. We have talked a
lot about the 3Rs, and I will not go into more about that now.
The development of alternative methods using human cells, AI and
modelling techniques was set out very eloquently by many Members,
including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West
and Hessle () earlier in the debate and my
hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (), who had five very clear
action points about the lack of necessity for experiments because
of scientific curiosity. We heard much about the alternatives,
which are very clear and in many cases much more effective than
research on animals.
As the official Opposition and probably with support more widely
across the House, we ask the Government to institute a
comprehensive review of animal testing with a view to improving
practice, limiting animal suffering and increasing transparency,
as well as having a long-term objective of phasing out animal
testing entirely. The Government must invest more in non-animal
technologies as an alternative to animal testing. There are some
very sophisticated technologies, as we have heard, which are
becoming more sophisticated by the year. They are clearly the
future.
The petition refers to licensing. It would be helpful to see
greater transparency in the issuing of licences so that the
public can see when and why animal testing takes place. According
to the 1986 Act, wherever possible a scientifically satisfactory
method or testing strategy not entailing the use of protected
animals must be used. It is a requirement for those seeking a
licence to demonstrate that they considered non-animal
alternatives. I wonder if the Minister could clarify how that
self-certification is then evaluated and whether licensing
applications are assessed by a non-animal methods expert. It is
important to understand the scientific rationale behind an
application, to understand the procedures and to know that they
will have the minimum possible impact on the animal in question.
Will the Minister outline the steps that the Government will take
to review the system and make it more transparent, and look at
licensing applications in the round?
In 2016, Ipsos MORI found that 74% of people believed that more
work is needed to find more non-animal alternatives. I am not
quite sure why it was only 74%; I suspect it is now much higher.
This is clearly a matter of great interest to the public, and
this place should respond to what the public are demanding of us
in this petition. Many other petitions on animal welfare issues
receive hundreds of thousands of signatures each year. We can
work harder. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Canterbury () and her all-party group on
their work—lots of good work is done across this place—but, as
the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, there are
people in this place who think the status quo is acceptable. What
is their argument, what have they got to say and where are they
today?
In our opinion, the Government have been dragging their heels on
animal issues for years. I would like the Minister to indicate
when they will announce a review to identify and eliminate at
least avoidable testing, and in the long term testing in its
entirety. Will the Government commit to eliminating every
unnecessary test? Will the Minister clarify whether the
Government are committed to upholding firm standards on animal
welfare? We have heard some horrible stories. My hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about the
animal welfare side of things—I have not even touched on
that—which is of course incredibly important.
I would be grateful if the Minister can set out where the
Government’s views on higher and higher restrictions on animal
testing sit in relation to the trade deals currently being
negotiated and the post-Brexit world that we live in. We should
remain firm in our commitments. We do not want to become more
reliant on ingredients and chemicals that have been tested on
animals abroad. The offshoring of animal cruelty and poor
standards is unacceptable. It would be good to hear from the
Minister about that.
Finally, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right
hon. Member for Croydon South (), answered a written
parliamentary question just a couple of weeks ago and said:
“The Home Office assures appropriate protection of the use of
animals in science through licensing and compliance assurance
under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This legal
framework, implemented by the Home Office Regulator, requires
that animals are only ever used in science where there are no
alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum
needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential
harm to animals is limited”—
and that was pretty much a full stop. There was no “We can go
further,” “There are things we can do,” or “We can improve.” No
inch was given on the status quo. I echo the view across the
House that we can do better and go faster. Will the Government
commit to that today?
(in the Chair)
Minister, there is plenty of time for you to respond, but I would
be grateful if you can leave a couple of minutes for Mr Colburn
to sum up.
5.42pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department ( )
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() for introducing today’s
debate, and I thank all other colleagues for their valuable
interventions and contributions.
The Government recognise that this is a policy issue of huge
importance and high public interest. It is therefore right and
proper that there is scrutiny of the matters that we have
discussed today. In opening, I would like to clarify the
Government’s position on the use of animals in science and make
some overall comments on progress in this area.
We all benefit from the use of animals in science. That can be
through improved knowledge of how tissues and organs work to help
find new treatments for disease and illness; the development and
safety testing of medicines before they are trialled and then
used in humans; the safety testing of chemicals to protect
workers and the environment; veterinary research and medicines to
support animal health; and the protection of the natural
environment and the preservation of species. When we need medical
care, we benefit from medicines and medical technologies that are
possible due to knowledge gained from the use of animals in
research. We trust those medicines are safe to use because of the
rigorous testing requirements, including at times the use of
animals.
There seem to be an awful lot of presumptions in the opening of
the Minister’s speech, including presumption that we all benefit
from testing on animals, despite the evidence that many Members
have provided. I gave two examples, including a case where
animals were used for testing, but when a dose 500 times lower
was used on humans, it killed five. I ask the Minister to
re-evaluate the assumption that humans always benefit from the
testing of products on animals.
Miss Dines
With the greatest respect, the Government are not saying that
humans always benefit from animal testing. It is in the nature of
testing that it has to be rigorous. Sometimes what is being
tested works, and sometimes it does not, but testing can take
place only if it is necessary. No one wants unnecessary harm to
animals, which is why the Government have the aim of replacing
live animals in scientific research and testing with non-animal
alternatives wherever possible. Perhaps we can all agree that
that is the aim.
Will the Minister give way?
Miss Dines
I will make some progress first. Our approach has two fronts.
First, robust regulation will ensure that animals are not used
where a non-animal alternative could deliver the benefit sought,
and secondly, our strategic aim is to facilitate and promote
alternatives to animals in scientific research and testing. I
therefore believe that we have a shared aim of fully replacing
live animals as soon as possible, where that is safe and
scientifically possible.
A number of Departments have a stake in the use of animals in
science, including: the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, which leads on science, research and
innovation, including alternatives to the use of animals; the
Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for
the regulation of medicines; and the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for chemical safety
and veterinary medicine regulations. The Home Office does not
require or commission the use of animals in science. Instead, we
regulate to ensure that all proposals for work are authorised
only where there is justified benefit, that animals are used only
where there is no alternative, that the minimum number of animals
is used, that harm is minimised, and that the animals are
appropriately cared for. I reject the narrative suggesting that
that is not the case. My colleague Lord Sharpe has ministerial
responsibility for this work.
By way of background, the debate on animals in scientific
research has at its centre three critical strategic imperatives:
first, the delivery of the benefits of the use of animals in
scientific research; secondly, the delivery of a rigorous and
robust regulatory system; and thirdly, the development of
alternatives to the use of live animals in procedures. Taken
together, these imperatives drive the Government’s policy on the
use of animals in science. I will focus my comments on the issues
raised by Members in this interesting debate.
Will the Minister give way?
Miss Dines
I will make a little more progress, and then I will, of course,
come back. The issues raised include the use of animals in
science and its regulation, the commercial breeding of laboratory
animals, and the development, promotion and acceptance of
non-animal methodologies. To be clear, as was said, the UK has
never set out to use animals in science. Instead, we have set out
to deliver public safety, world-class health innovations and
breakthroughs, and to make life-changing discoveries, from new
vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and
blood transfusions. Indeed, the development of the covid-19
vaccine was possible because of the use of animals in research.
The use of animals in science must always be considered in the
broader context. Animal research and testing is only ever a small
part of a wider programme.
Several hon. Members rose—
Miss Dines
I really must make progress.
In all these instances, the drive has never been to use animals,
but to deliver benefits through the justified use of animals.
There is significant public concern around the ethical and moral
case for the use of animals in science. Animals are expensive to
use and difficult to work with, and their use carries a burden of
regulation. Animal experimentation is something that people,
including this Government, do not like. It is therefore not a
matter of choosing to use animals, but of using the best method
for the scientific experiment, and ensuring that animals are not
used when other methods can give the information needed.
Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there
are still purposes for which it is unfortunately essential to use
live animals. In many instances, that is because the complexity
of whole biological systems cannot be replicated simply using
validated non-animal methodologies. However, the Government are
committed to looking at alternatives, especially where the safety
of humans and animals needs to be ensured—a point that is central
to some of the concerns we have heard today. The data from animal
testing and research has an important function in the human drug
development process, which primarily concerns the safety of new
medicines. The use of animals is required by international
regulators to assess any adverse effects before clinical trials.
Such testing is crucial to protect the safety of participants and
the public. If we were to remove the requirement for animal
testing, many potential medicines would not progress on to the
market, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be
considerably higher.
Under the UK’s regulation pertaining to the use of chemical
substances—the REACH regulations, mentioned by Members—industry
participants must understand the hazards and risks of the
chemicals that they manufacture, place on the market and use.
That is to protect human health and the environment from the
effects of harmful chemicals. For some chemical hazards, there is
no immediate prospect of developing a non-animal alternative test
method that could be used as the standard test method across the
full range of chemicals. These hazards include reproductive
toxicity and bioaccumulation up the food chain in the
environment. REACH contains the “last resort” principle for
vertebrate animals. That means that an animal study can be
carried out only once all other ways of assessing the chemical’s
hazard have been exhausted.
The Government are clear that when animals are used in science,
they must be protected. The use of animals in science is
therefore highly regulated. A licence is required for every
establishment, project and individual involved in performing
regulated procedures with animals. All establishments are
required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary
surgeons, with legal responsibility for the care and welfare of
animals, and an ethical review body. Establishments are required
to comply with published standards for the care and accommodation
of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific
purposes.
Will the Minister give way?
Miss Dines
I apologise to hon. Members for not allowing interventions, but I
want to leave time to respond directly to comments made.
We continue to develop our approach to regulation, so that we can
continually improve compliance with the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986. We are modernising our approach to ensure
that all establishments deliver stronger internal governance
systems and processes.
If we are to achieve the benefits of the carefully regulated use
of animals in science, there must be a supply of animals bred
specifically for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Carshalton and Wallington said. Establishments that breed or
supply animals for use in science contribute to activities that
are critical to protecting human health and to making advances in
science. Moreover, they are operating within a regulatory
framework, set out under the 1986 Act, which requires an
establishment licence and assessment of their compliance with
regulation. In the UK, under the Act, establishments that breed
animals for use in science are also required to provide care and
accommodation to those animals in line with the published code of
practice. Adherence to the code of practice and the requirements
of the Act are assessed by the regulator as part of its
compliance assurance programme.
I recognise the strength of feeling shown today on the subject of
breeding animals, particularly dogs. It elicits an emotional
response, and I understand that. However, I must be very clear
that while we fully uphold people’s right to peaceful protest
within the law, recent events at the dog-breeding site that was
mentioned have gone beyond peaceful protest, leading to criminal
investigations and sanctions. The tactics of protestors have
included intimidation, direct action against staff doing their
job, and the criminal theft of animals from the site. I confirm
that sites are regulated and regularly inspected, so we can
assure ourselves that such companies are conducting their work in
a manner that complies with the law. It is important that we
agree that individuals doing legal business, under an Act of
Parliament made in this place, should have the freedom to
continue to do that without threat.
The call for a ban on commercial breeders appears mainly focused
on the breeding of dogs. It is important to recognise that under
the Act no dogs can be authorised for use if the scientific
objective can be achieved without using those animals or by using
animals of less sentience. The majority of dogs used in science
are required for safety testing potential new medicines, in line
with international requirements designed to protect human health.
Research using dogs has been a step in the development of more
than 95% of all chemical medicines approved in the European Union
in the last 20 years, including medications for use in treatments
for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and specific genetic
disorders.
Banning commercial breeding of dogs for scientific purposes could
prevent potential new medicines from being tested in Great
Britain. If that happened, safety testing work to assure public
protection would no doubt have to be offshored to other
countries. We cannot guarantee that such testing, or the
treatment of animals there, would be carried out to the standard
that we expect in the UK. Moreover, having exported that work, we
may then be importing it back by means of new medicines. Seeking
to close commercial breeders is not the answer. We must continue
to address the issue on other fronts.
In supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and
technologies, the Government are led by the Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We seek to reduce the
reliance on research and work that involves the use of animals,
and to avoid some of the scientific limitations mentioned by hon.
Members. Such advances include stem cell research, cell culture
systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new
computer modelling techniques.
The UK has a world-leading reputation for the delivery of the
3Rs, which are the replacement, reduction and refinement of the
use of animals in science. Our framework is replicated
internationally. We lead the way in various areas, and I do not
accept the characterisation of the framework as defunct, old
fashioned or out of date; we are leading on this work. The
national centre received core funding of multiple millions of
pounds, and the Government are committed to investing
appropriately in that centre.
Since it was established, the centre has invested £77 million in
research and £27 million in contracts, and it has recently
published its new strategy to increase the focus on animal
replacement technologies; it also champions high standards in
animal research. We are seeking proper funding to move away from
the use of animals. The UK contributes significantly to the
development and embedding of non-animal methods in chemical
testing internationally, for both human and environmental safety,
through participation in a number of collaborative research and
development programmes. That includes both leading on and
supporting projects undertaken with the OECD to introduce
internationally harmonised tools and guidance for new
approaches.
I will mention briefly the points made so eloquently by the
Members who spoke. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon
Hull West and Hessle () that we must grip the new
opportunities to move away from animal use, if we can. We are
spending money, and we seek to move forward. To the hon. Member
for Bristol East (), I point out that we
regularly commission independent work; the Animals in Science
Committee gives valued advice on the development of policy. I can
confirm that we have commissioned advice on the rabbit forced
swim testing that was mentioned. She may want to look further at
that important work for more information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned
that the statistics in this area are not as informative as they
should be. We have the most comprehensive system in Europe for
the publication of statistics, via the Office for National
Statistics. For example, we know that in 2021, the use of dogs
decreased by 3%; last year it decreased by 7%. Over the past 10
years, advances have been made. Inspections were mentioned; there
are regular inspections. The regulator publishes the number of
inspections in its annual report, and we are running a
modernisation programme focused on improving those
inspections.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West () mentioned, with
eloquence, her desire for improvements in this area. I agree that
we are a nation of animal lovers. We believe in high welfare
standards. As a nation, we believe in public safety,
environmental safety and the protection of animals where
possible. That is why the Government’s approach focuses on
alternatives that get us away from using animals. Animals will be
used only when absolutely necessary. There were many other very
useful contributions, which I value and have considered. It would
be unfair if I took up all the time, but if there are any
specific issues that I have not addressed, I would welcome any
letters, to which I will respond when there is more time.
5.57pm
I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, and thank
colleagues for their contributions. I gently say to the
Government that this is an issue that the Petitions Committee has
to keep bringing back, because petitioners feel so strongly about
it that they keep asking us to debate it again. It will not go
away.
It is nearly 40 years since the regulatory framework was set out
in the 1986 Act. While there were admirable ambitions in the Act
for reducing animal testing and refinement, the fact that animal
testing went up between 2020 and 2021 demonstrates that those
ambitions are not being met. Technological advances have since
overtaken events. There is inevitability here; we will have to
move on this anyway. The USA did in December, and other countries
are going in that direction already. International regulatory
frameworks are already looking to revise guidance. The assumption
that the 3Rs are being met, or that the undertakings on the
search for alternative methods are being met, is demonstrably
untrue, given the evidence collected by the third sector. The
Government are sitting on a piece of work from 2014. I repeat my
request for an update from the Home Office on what happened to
that piece of work.
Ending animal testing is not just a nice thing to do; animal
testing is demonstrably bad for animals, produces bad results and
is bad for the economy. There is benefit to humans in massively
increasing the amount of research and development we do through
non-animal methods. I urge the Government to go away and look at
the matter again, update the House on the 2014 consultation
results, set up the committee, and move towards the ambition of
reducing, and finally eliminating, the use of animals in
testing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered E-petition 611810, relating to
commercial breeding for laboratories.
|
