Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 633591 and 645885
relating to animal testing and non-animal research methods. It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. On behalf
of the Petitions Committee, I would like to introduce two petitions
dealing with legislation on animal testing and the promotion of
non-animal research methods. I stress that we are here once
again—this is...Request free trial
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 633591 and 645885
relating to animal testing and non-animal research methods.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I would like to introduce
two petitions dealing with legislation on animal testing and the
promotion of non-animal research methods. I stress that we are
here once again—this is becoming an annual debate. That
demonstrates the strength of feeling of our constituents and of
people across the UK, a nation of animal lovers, that these
procedures and processes really must start being brought to an
end.
I will start by reading the prayers of the petitions. The first,
e-petition 633591, advocates for the ending of animal toxicity
tests and the prioritisation of non-animal methods, or NAMs. The
petition was started by Maria and closed in September 2023 with
109,378 signatures, including 233 from my Carshalton and
Wallington constituency. It argues that NAMs are
“more predictive of human biology, more economically
advantageous,”
and prevent animal suffering. E-petition 645885 calls for the
banning of the use of dogs for testing and research, citing their
cognitive abilities and emotional range. The petition was started
by singer-songwriter and actor Will Young, who I am delighted to
see in the Public Gallery today. As of now, it has over 30,000
signatures, including 35 from Carshalton and Wallington.
Let me begin with a bit of background information. Animal testing
is covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which
was amended in 2012 to include cephalopods as protected animals.
Regulated procedures include acts that may cause pain, suffering,
distress or lasting harm to animals. Animal testing is often
cited by some in the industry as being necessary for various
purposes, including drug development, veterinary medicines, and
chemical or environmental safety testing. However, we have
already made movements away from it, for example in the 1998 ban
on testing of beauty products and cosmetics, and in a recent
written answer, the Government confirmed that there are no laws
mandating its use. Nevertheless, we are still in a very
challenging situation, and these practices continue.
I want to reiterate some of the data that we spoke about last
year. In 2021, over 3 million scientific procedures were
conducted on animals. If that number were not bad enough, that
was actually an increase on previous years—an increase in the use
of dogs by 3%, of cats by 6%, of horses by 29% and of monkeys by
17%. We can only speculate why the number increased, but that
certainly does not tie in with the messages we hear that the use
of NAMs is on the up and the use of animals on the down.
The issue is not just that these procedures are happening to
animals, but the awful conditions that animals are often kept in
while waiting for procedures to be done to them. A recent report
from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit described “deeply
troubling” animal welfare standards in British laboratories
between 2019 and 2021. I am sure that many of us will have
received emails containing pictures and videos of some of those
procedures. I have seen some pretty awful things that are
happening to animals here in the UK, despite the industry telling
us that it upholds the highest possible animal welfare standards.
Failings include a non-human primate dying after becoming trapped
behind a restraint device; 112 rats being crushed alive when they
were moved in error to a compactor; and numerous incidents of
animals being left without water or food.
As I said, the UK purports to be a nation of animal lovers, and I
truly believe that it is, but we need to ensure that we update
our laws to truly reflect that fact. I acknowledge that efforts
are being made to promote NAMs—including cell cultures, human
tissues, computer modelling and volunteer studies—and that
organisations are trying to invest in and improve the use of NAMs
to reduce reliance on animal testing. However, I want to pay
particular attention to the second of the two petitions that we
are debating, which relates specifically to dogs.
Dogs are most commonly used in secondary species testing. That is
where a test on an animal, normally a mouse or rat, has already
been conducted but some researchers go on to conduct a secondary
test on a different species, and dogs are commonly cited as
animals used for that. However, the industry itself says that
that is almost completely unnecessary now. Companies such as
Pfizer and AstraZeneca have stood up at global health forums and
said, “We don’t want to do secondary species testing any more.
Please help us find the road map to get us out of the need to do
this.”
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; he is making
a passionate speech on such an important matter. My constituency
is Ynys Môn, and we are an island of animal lovers—animals
ranging from dolphins and red squirrels to sheep and cattle and
our feline and canine friends—so it is no surprise that many of
my constituents actively campaign for the rights of animals and
support reducing the use of animals in scientific experiments.
They and I would like to know what steps the Government are
taking to support the pharmaceutical industry in the development
and use of non-animal testing models.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I think
that more than 100 of her constituents signed this petition too.
I hope that the Minister heard her request—indeed, I am sure that
it is an ask of all of us in the Chamber today. What is being
done, and what more can be done, to try to encourage people out
of using animals and into using non-animal methods?
I want to pick up again the point about animal welfare. Many
people will cite the regulations that are in place in the UK for
animals in experiment environments. However, this statistic might
shed some light on why welfare standards are so low. As of 2021,
there were only an estimated 23 full-time equivalent inspectors
in the United Kingdom. That is 23 inspectors trying to look at 3
million different procedures. The fact that so much
self-reporting is going on in the industry and there are so few
inspectors leads, again, to the argument that non-animal methods
are a much better use of money and bring with them higher ethical
and moral standards.
I want to go through some of the proposed solutions before I hand
over to some of my colleagues. PETA—People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals—has proposed a solution known as the
research modernisation deal, or RMD, which offers a strategy to
eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research, regulatory
testing and education. It prioritises non-animal methods,
conducts critical reviews to assess the necessity of animal use,
and reallocates funds to non-animal methods. This is aimed
specifically at making the UK once again a leader in innovative,
ethical scientific practices. Furthermore, we have seen advances
in technology such as in vitro and in silico tests, and
innovative technologies such as organs on chips, which offer
higher levels of protection and prediction accuracy.
(Romsey and Southampton
North) (Con)
rose—
That is one of the things I want to stress, but before I do so, I
will give way to the Chair of the Women and Equalities
Committee.
My hon. Friend makes the really important point that non-animal
methods can be much more accurate than using animals in these
experiments. Does he agree that companies such as Lush, which
came to Parliament before Christmas to advocate for those
methods, have shown the way in which, through science, we can do
better?
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is something
that we cannot stress enough in this debate: it has been proven
in the data time and again that non-animal methods are highly
accurate, and much more accurate when it comes to predicting
human responses than animal testing is. In fact, animal testing
has such low levels of success when it comes to measuring how a
drug or something else might affect a human that we would not
accept that in any other form of business. When the levels of
prediction are so poor, why are we still accepting it? It does
not make any sense—not when we have alternatives that can offer
much greater clarity about to how humans will react to products
and drugs.
However, there are challenges standing in the way, and one of
them remains funding for NAMs. Pfizer and AstraZeneca have said
that they do not want to do things such as secondary species
testing, but regulatory guidelines often expect new drugs to be
tested on animals and there is a lack of consensus on possible
transition timelines. There is also push-back from the industry,
which is resistant to change. However, in advance of this debate
I spoke to many scientists and industry leads who said they are
crying out for change and want to be at the forefront of
non-animal methods. We need to give them the tools to do so and
look at the way we fund research.
(East Kilbride, Strathaven
and Lesmahagow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. He is standing up
for all the animals that do not have a voice in the industry and
speaking for those across the UK who want to support them.
Several organisations contacted me and talked about the need for
change. They said that we must look after animals—particularly
beagle pups—post testing where possible, but they pointed out
that the industry has been very resistant to engaging with
rehoming centres, even when the beagle pups have not undergone
lethal testing. Surely we can do better. Whenever an animal can
have a life in a loving home afterwards, we must make that
happen.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister heard
that.
Commercial breeding—in particular, of beagles—is hard for this
country to accept. The data shows that a lot of such testing, if
not all of it, is unnecessary because the accuracy of the tests
is so low. Given that secondary species tests on dogs seem so
unnecessary, why are we still allowing them to happen?
Since the debate last year, there has been some welcome news
internationally: Canada, Australia and countries within the
European Union have come up with road maps for ending animal
testing. It is critical that we ask the Government to consider
how we do that. We need a strategy and a road map to work with
the industry, campaign groups, charities, other organisations and
the people who are in the Public Gallery today, to move us away
from the use of animals and towards non-animal methods as the
default standard. I appreciate that some countries have found it
difficult to come up with precise timelines because of
disagreements within the sector, but that does not mean we should
not try. That is the key thing to take away from this debate.
There are things that we can do in the immediate and interim
terms, one of which is to look at animal welfare standards.
Twenty-three people looking at 3 million procedures simply is not
enough. We also need an immediate review of the necessity of
secondary species testing. Whatever happens next, it is
imperative that we prioritise the development and adoption of
non-animal research methods. The fact the number of scientific
procedures conducted on animals went up in 2021—we actually
stopped collecting data after that point, so we are not entirely
sure how many we are doing, which I think is a
mistake—demonstrates that there is not enough impetus behind the
agenda of moving towards non-animal methods.
I ask the Government to invest in and fund NAMs properly by
reallocating existing funds and promoting collaboration. They
have an incredible ability to bring together the industry,
researchers, advocacy groups, campaigners and others to create a
road map and a strategy so we can truly say that the UK does not
need to use animal testing methods any more. We can stop the use
of animals and hold ourselves up to an incredibly high
international standard as a nation of animal lovers.
4.44pm
(Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() on leading the debate in
such a detailed, passionate and knowledgeable way.
My constituents, like all others, are passionate about animals,
and many have contacted me to oppose their use in laboratory
testing. It is upsetting for all those who love animals to learn
that, in laboratories across the country, so many
animals—including dogs, which we often describe as our best
friends—are subjected to awful experiments under the guise of the
public good.
It is often said that the UK is a nation of animal lovers, and I
think that that is absolutely true. The UK was the first country
to instigate animal protection laws, in 1822, and the first to
set up an animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals. Public opinion is clear, and nearly 100 of
my constituents have signed the petition to end the use of
animals for toxicity tests and to prioritise non-animal methods,
or NAMs. There is enough evidence now that non-animal methods can
be more accurate, more cost-effective and quicker than
traditional animal models.
Although researchers are already required to use non-animal
methods wherever possible, concerns have been raised that the
process of checking whether NAMs have been used is not rigorous
enough. Cruelty Free International has found cases of animal
testing being used despite non-animal alternatives being
available. It is therefore disappointing that the Government’s
response to these petitions is that there will be no change in
the law. Although we should all welcome the fact that we have
improved our animal welfare laws over the years, we should not be
complacent. At a time when new alternatives and non-animal
methods are being developed, we should embrace this opportunity
for leadership and to make regulations more stringent.
I am sure we all want to minimise the use of animals in
scientific experimentation and the cosmetic industry as much as
possible, including by funding research into alternatives. We
have already heard about Lush and its very successful reception
at the end of last year. There are enough companies that are
really promoting the use of alternative methods, so we should
really listen to industry on this issue.
We know that animal testing can be unreliable and unpredictable
and that it causes unnecessary suffering. Humans differ
considerably from animals, so the use of animals often leads to
poor results. The regulatory requirement that animals be used
before human trials is more than 70 years old. Reviewing that,
and removing the needless suffering of animals, will finally
bring scientific research into the 21st century.
Of course, there are also methods of digital testing, so we
really have moved a long way since the law was last revised. A
growing number of human-relevant methods are already being
developed. Those are made up of innovative technologies that are
helping to deliver better results for humans. Despite that, there
is a continued misconception that animal testing provides a gold
standard for the regulatory approval of a product.
An expert advisory taskforce could play an important role in
exploring animal-free innovation. We should also review all
animal procedures to remove duplicative and wasteful methods and
to prevent the retesting on animals of any material, chemical,
food or drug currently in use. Retesting should be conducted
using only non-animal methods or existing human data.
The Government have responded to the petition to ban any testing
on dogs by saying that welfare standards are already high and
that testing would still continue in other countries. Those are
valid responses, yet I think that we can do better and provide
even more leadership to other countries. That other countries
continue to use dogs is not a good reason as to why we should do
so in this country.
Although we should be proud that the UK has some of the highest
welfare standards in the world, we must build on our robust
record and lead by example. To achieve that, greater funding is
required to support the development of new technologies and new,
innovative testing methods. Sadly, Government funding for such
methods currently represents less than 1% of total UK biomedical
research. We can do better, and I would particularly like to hear
from the Minister on this point. We know that increased research
funding often pays back multiple times to the economy—we have had
a debate on research funding in this Chamber before—so investment
makes good sense.
There is no excuse for animal cruelty, and we must do all we can
to ensure that the humane treatment of animals is upheld
everywhere. The moral and scientific case for tighter regulation
of laboratory testing is clear. It is time that the Government
listened to increasing numbers of scientists and voters.
4.49pm
(Camborne and Redruth)
(Con)
This is an incredibly important debate, which has been brought
about by these two petitions. In 1986, this country introduced
the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. At the time, it was seen
as world-leading and as the gold standard, with its three Rs
principles: to replace animal testing wherever possible; to
reduce animal testing where it was not possible to replace it;
and to refine it to reduce suffering where it occurred. However,
it is increasingly clear that a review of the legislation is now
needed and that we need to make further legislative improvements.
We have always been ahead of the United States on animal welfare
issues, but this is one area where, arguably, we have now fallen
behind them. Until recently, the US required animal testing for
certain product authorisations, but it has now brought forward
legislation to modern its statute and make it explicit that there
is no need for animal testing for any of those products.
In the UK, we have a degree of ambiguity. The Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency does not explicitly require
animal testing, but there is a degree of ambiguity because it is
equally cautious about saying that there should not be animal
testing. I will come on to that later.
In debates such as this we should always give credit where credit
is due, and it is important to note that the Government
effectively banned the use of animal testing in the development
of cosmetics in 2023, or at least made it clear that there would
be no new licences for such activities. That followed the huge
progress made by companies such as Unilever and others to phase
out the need for animal testing on their products. However, the
greatest concern for me is that despite exponential growth in
non-animal methods and huge leaps in that technology over 20
years—with the development, for instance, of organ-on-chip
technology and bioprinting—the number of animals used in animal
tests remains stubbornly high, at around 4 million per year,
principally mice.
The 1986 Act is deficient in some minor but quite obvious ways.
When it was originally drafted, it simply covered invertebrates,
which was consistent with the animal welfare legislation we had
at the time. In 2012, the coalition Government decided to add
cephalopods to the legislation—for those not familiar with that
terminology, it essentially means species from the octopus
family—but they did not add decapods. As the Minister will know,
the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 now recognises
both cephalopods and decapods as being sentient species. At the
very least, therefore, we should bring the 1986 Act into line
with our current animal welfare legislation, which would require
the addition of decapods as protected species.
My more important concern is that if the three Rs had been
applied correctly, given the exponential growth in technology
that we have seen in the last 20 years, we would have expected to
see a correlation and a sharp reduction in the number of animals
being used, as the replacement principle was applied. Instead,
over the last 20 years the number has really drifted along
sideways. I appreciate that it has dipped at times, but it is
telling that in the first year of lockdown, when the number of
animals being tested fell quite significantly, it was said that
it had fallen to the lowest level since 2004. That is quite
damning in itself, because if an anomaly year, when the amount of
testing was at an all-time low, meant that the level had still
got back only to the level it was at in 2004, that suggests that
something is going wrong and that the application of the three Rs
is not having the effect originally intended by the 1986 Act.
I am afraid that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that what
started out in 1986 as a robust regime—perhaps the most robust
regime in the world—has probably drifted and coalesced into a
rather unsatisfactory system of self-regulation. We have to ask
ourselves why those three Rs principles are not being effectively
applied. Ultimately, I think it is because everybody defers to
process but no one really takes proper ownership. We have ended
up with cultural attitudes around the use of animals in
scientific procedures that masquerade as science, when actually
the science does not require those animals to be used in such
numbers at all.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
I have always thought that one of the problems—as a former
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have insight into this—is
that animal welfare sits with the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs but the Home Office is in charge of
licensing. Usually it is in the hands of a Minister who has 101
other things on their plate, and it is a small part of their
brief. Today, we have the team from the Science Department here,
and I hope they are looking at the more progressive view. Is the
problem that there is no one Minister who can take ownership of
the issue?
That is part of the problem. I am sure that the Minister has a
busy diary, and there is an argument that the issue falls partly
on the Science Department and partly on the Home Office. At the
moment, the unit that processes the licences sits in the Home
Office but, as I will say later, there is a strong case for a
machinery of government change that relieves the Home Office of
that burden, which it is not really qualified to carry out, and
transfers it to a Department such as DEFRA, where there are vets
and where the legislation can be treated, rightly, as a piece of
animal welfare legislation, rather than a piece of scientific
licensing.
I want to explain why we have this problem. Three types of
licence are needed to carry out these scientific procedures. An
individual has to have a licence, and there is a licence on the
establishment, which is fairly uncontroversial. The difficulty
comes with the project licences. Universities and research
institutions have internal animal welfare and ethics boards,
which assess applications before they go to the Home Office. But
how hard do they challenge requests from academics working in
their institutions? Perhaps they occasionally ask a few questions
and challenge a bit, but it appears that they, effectively, defer
to the judgment of the academics who put in the requests, and the
academics then agree. The ethics board agrees to the application,
which is then submitted to the Home Office.
Let us bear in mind that the team in the Home Office have to
process around 4,000 project licences a year. They are overworked
and stretched. They will see that an ethics board, with
professors and people with “Dr” in front of their names, has
assessed that the project is necessary. They will defer to the
scientific knowledge of those boards—and perhaps wrongly so.
Although scientists are qualified to give good technical
analysis, they are not, by and large, qualified to make good
decisions, least of all when it comes to decisions relating to
policies underpinned by laws made in this House. Only the civil
service, backed up by Ministers, can make those kinds of
decisions.
I suspect that there is, in the Home Office, a large degree of
deference, which is possibly misplaced, to those animal welfare
and ethics boards. That is why the Home Office almost never
refuses a licence. I understand that, in response to
parliamentary questions on this issue, Home Office Ministers will
say, “You cannot really judge the fact that we have not refused a
licence as evidence that we are not applying ourselves with
voracity to this task, because we will often question things and
send applications back for further consideration.” I completely
understand that, and it is a fair point, but we have over 4,000
project applications a year. Are we really saying that the Home
Office might not judge it appropriate to refuse even one in order
to create some boundaries and parameters and to inject some
vigour and rigour into the system?
A further cultural problem stems from the MHRA, which regulates
medicinal and pharmaceutical products in the UK. Although it has
confirmed that it does not require animal testing, and that it is
open to individual companies and research establishments to
decide what type of research they need, a perception exists
within industry and academia that experiments carried out using
live animals have greater credibility and acceptability. A clear
statement from the MHRA that it is not neutral or indifferent,
but will take a dim view of products brought before it that have
used animal experiments when they might not have been necessary,
would sharpen the process and focus minds as to the need for
using animal experiments.
How can we get to a position in which the three Rs are being
applied as the original Act intended? One of the petitions calls
for more funding for non-animal methods. In the UK, we are
blessed with some of the world’s best researchers in this area.
The Blizard Institute at Queen Mary University of London, which I
visited a few months ago, hosts an animal replacement centre of
excellence. It is doing some extraordinary work on organ-on-chip
and bioprinting. In dermatological research in particular, there
is now no doubt that such non-animal methods are far superior to
using live animals.
I have a probing proposal for the Minister. As a way to raise
money, sharpen the incentives in the current system and get the
three Rs enforced, I propose that we consider applying a levy on
the use of each individual animal in testing, as part of the
project licence. In some ways, it feels quite incongruous to have
to put a monetary value on the life of a mouse to get people to
take it seriously, but if researchers are not taking the
intrinsic value of that mouse’s life as seriously as they should,
let us consider some other incentives that might reinforce the
original three Rs. Let us consider applying a project licence
levy of £100 or £200 for each mouse used, and see whether that
focuses minds on the animal welfare and ethics committees. Let us
see if it makes them think twice before saying that they need 100
mice for something when they could do it with less. We should
consider something like that. The other advantage of a levy is
that we could ringfence all its proceeds and put them directly
into research on non-animal methods. That is my suggestion to the
Minister.
I was a Minister myself for nine years, and I know that it is
very easy for people to call for more money for things, but it is
not straightforward to be the Minister who has to go to the
Treasury and say, “By the way, we’d like just a little bit more
money for this one thing that is quite important.” Traditionally,
20 years ago, the Treasury did not like levies and saw them as a
hypothecated tax, but we are in different territory post the
financial crisis and the many other problems since then. I am
sure that if the Minister went to the Treasury and said that he
was going to apply a levy of £200 per mouse used in experiments,
the faces in the Treasury would light up. They would see the
potential to do something useful with that.
Finally, where should responsibility reside for the 1986 Act and
the policy under it? I know that that discussion is ongoing
within the Government. My view is that the Home Office is a very
busy Department and has a huge amount to contend with, and it is
very unlikely that its Ministers would be able to give this issue
the attention that it deserves. The right thing would be to make
a machinery-of-government change transferring full responsibility
for animal testing, the 1986 Act and the regulatory regime under
it to DEFRA, which has the vets, the scientists and people who
would approach this issue as an animal welfare issue. Equally, it
has people who understand the importance of science. As our vets
have proven on multiple occasions, they are not squeamish about
these matters: they will take difficult decisions if need be.
Most importantly of all, if the policy were within DEFRA,
veterinary science could challenge medical science. Often, we
find in veterinary science a better understanding of
vaccinations, epidemiology and medicines, with a body of
technical expertise that can challenge the medical expertise
sitting in other Departments. That is why I think that such a
machinery-of-government change should take place.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on some of those
suggestions. I appreciate that it is very unlikely that he could
bring forward a levy that might sharpen the implementation of the
three Rs between now and the general election, but all parties
will be able to think about these issues as they draft their
manifestos for the general election ahead.
5.05pm
(Chatham and Aylesford)
(Con)
As always, Dame Caroline, it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Carshalton and Wallington () on his excellent
introduction to this debate, which set out all the issues in his
usual informed style.
I have spoken about animal welfare on many occasions in
Parliament. It has consistently remained at the forefront of the
issues that my constituents write to me about. I am honoured to
represent them in this debate. I have always maintained that we
are a nation of animal lovers; I believe that the nearly 110,000
signatures that e-petition 633591 gained is proof of that, along
with the 31,000 that e-petition 645885 has so far gathered.
In 2022, 2.76 million scientific procedures involving live
animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of those, 55% were for
experimental purposes; creating and breeding genetically altered
animals accounted for the other 45%. A smidgen of good news is
that between 2021 and 2022, there was a 10% decrease in the
number of procedures, which reached the lowest numbers since
2002, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth
() pointed out. Although 4,122
procedures were used on dogs, that was a 2% decrease on 2021. The
problem is that there are still too many of these experiments
taking place.
In a recent YouGov poll, nearly three quarters of respondents
were opposed to the testing of both ingredients and completed
cosmetics on animals. This included 58% of people “strongly”
opposed to both types of testing. While some 47% of people think
that testing individual ingredients from medicines on animals is
acceptable when there is no non-animal alternative, 30% think
that it is not acceptable.
As somebody who has campaigned on these issues for a long time, I
naturally fall into the majority view on animal testing with
respect to cosmetics; I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for
Camborne and Redruth for his work on the issue as Secretary of
State. When it comes to medicines, however, I tend to melt into a
mess of complexity. Sometimes, personal experiences and those of
our constituents can muddy a binary view on this issue. I have
absolutely no doubt that the success of my breast cancer
treatment is down to past experiments that have taken place on
animals. It is hard to remove that from the equation.
At the excellent meeting I had with Animal Free Research UK, I
was keen to explain my quandary. In the process of doing so, it
was good not only to hear of the work being done on
human-specific technologies at hubs such as the University of
Exeter’s, but to learn of the work that the Association of
Medical Research Charities is doing to improve transparency
around animal research and animal welfare. It is worth noting
that many of the AMRC’s members make it very clear that they
support research involving animals only where there is no
alternative. Given that cancer survival rates have doubled in the
past 40 years, the scientific community ought to be thanked for
its painstaking research and analysis. We know that sometimes
this involves studying the biology of a disease in a whole body,
and not just on individual cells or tissues. However, even those
of us who are beneficiaries of that research want to know that
good animal welfare practices have been employed and that the use
of that research has been clinically justifiable.
How long can we keep doing animal testing when technology and
NAMs are advancing so quickly? I would argue that if this country
is to become a science superpower, we should lead by example and
rapidly accelerate the use of animal-free research with a
long-term ambition of zero animal experiments. We need the road
map that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington
outlined. Bold action needs to start today if the UK is to keep
pace with global action to support human-specific technologies.
The US Congress has now passed the Food and Drug Administration
Modernisation Act, facilitating the use of non-animal methods for
drug testing, while the European Commission has committed to
developing a road map for ultimately phasing out animal
tests.
Animal Free Research UK and others have made some short and
medium-term recommendations, which are reasonable asks. They note
that the forthcoming Budget could be an opportunity to launch an
ambitious funding call to develop human-specific technologies and
attract private investment. They suggest providing dedicated
transition grants to leverage the potential of human-specific
tech and provide tax relief for companies that are working on
these innovations. They also suggest establishing a non-animal
science innovation hub, which I am sure would be really
attractive to the next generation of scientists, whose animal
welfare and environmental conscience seems so naturally
embedded.
For what it is worth, I agree with the point that colleagues have
made about ministerial responsibility and the challenges that it
brings. However, I am pleased that we have a Science Minister who
cares about these matters. Ending animal experiments can only
lead to positive change in research methods. The Government have
introduced a great deal of legislation on animal sentience and
animal welfare in recent years, for which my constituents and I
are truly grateful. Allowing the continued use of animal testing
only undermines the achievements of that legislation. I hope that
the House will join us today in upholding the Government’s
commitment to animal welfare by supporting these excellent
petitions and looking at how we can continue to reduce the use of
animals in research so that one day it is not necessary at
all.
5.11pm
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington () for opening the debate so
comprehensively, as he has done with other such debates. I am
delighted to participate in this debate on animal testing and
non-animal research methods, arising from e-petitions that have
attracted more than 140,000 signatures between them. The
petitions call for an end to the use of animals for toxicity
tests, the prioritisation of non-animal methods in research, and
a ban on the use of dogs for testing and research purposes.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford () is not alone in receiving a
lot of emails about animal welfare. I certainly receive more
emails about animal welfare than about any other issue, which is
quite remarkable when we consider the issues that we see on the
news every day, but which shows the level of concern, commitment
and affection that our constituents across the UK have for animal
welfare.
We have debated many times the principle of using animals in
research—and here we are again. It is frustrating, but those of
us who believe that testing on animals must end must keep
debating it and making the case until we see an end to these
horrific and unnecessary practices. As we have heard, it has long
been accepted that animals are sentient beings that are able to
have physical and emotional experiences. We know that the public
wish overwhelmingly to see an end to animal testing, because it
is cruel, causes suffering and, more importantly, is unnecessary,
yet 2.7 million procedures involving animals took place across
the UK in 2022. That number is very high. Experimental procedures
are decreasing, but the reality is that even where alternative
non-animal research methods are available, animals are being used
for experiments. Of all the distressing aspects, that is perhaps
the most difficult for anybody to justify.
We know that animal tests are taking place in the UK and Europe
where there are accepted, validated alternatives. Over three
quarters of adults living in Scotland—76%—believe that
alternatives to animal tests should be a funding priority in the
UK for science and innovation. A majority of Scots—62%—want
deadlines for phasing out animal tests. When it comes to specific
species, more than two thirds of Scots think that it is
unacceptable to use dogs, cats and monkeys in such experiments.
Undoubtedly, and despite huge public opposition, the UK is one of
the top users of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe, but
it seems that a culture change is needed. That is what we must
keep pressing for.
According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, most
drug testing on dogs sees them repeatedly force-fed or forced to
inhale substances over prolonged periods to measure the effects
of repeated exposure on their major organs. In some factory
farms, female dogs are forced to spend their entire lives as
puppy-producing machines, allegedly churning out between 1,600
and 2,000 offspring for medical testing each year.
The well-known campaigning group Camp Beagle, some of whose
members may be here today, has led calls for the UK Government to
ban toxicity testing on beagles of products such as household
bleach, cleaning products and weed killers. I am sure we all
welcome the fact, mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington, that Canada recently banned the use of animals for
regulatory toxicity tests, but we need to see the same happen
here in the UK.
The public are appalled to learn that, in the name of animal
testing, dogs are kept in overcrowded cages, forced to inhale
toxins with funnels strapped to their snouts and undergo immense
pain and suffering until they die or are killed. Legally, they
can be poisoned with toxic chemicals, shot, irradiated, gassed,
blown up, stabbed, drowned, burned, starved, subject to electric
shocks, deprived of sleep and infected with diseases, and have
their bones broken and limbs amputated. Yet, recent developments
in evolutionary and developmental biology and genetics have
significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no
predictive value for human responses to drugs or the
pathophysiology of human disease. Indeed, over 92% of drugs that
show promise in animal tests fail to translate into safe and
effective medicines for humans.
Cruelty Free International research shows that the UK is in the
top 10 of animal-testing countries—that is, it is one of the top
10 users of dogs and monkeys in experiments in the world. That is
quite something. In the face of such unnecessary cruelty and
suffering, we must again call for rigorous public scientific
hearings to reduce the unnecessary harm caused by animal
experiments, ban this immoral and unjustifiable practice, and
pursue alternatives instead.
There is a need for greater transparency in the animal research
industry, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about challenges
of funding new approach methodologies, but it is worth
remembering that when the UK—as I assume it will—updates its
legislation in this area, industry will adapt, just as it will in
Canada and in others taking a leading approach. One thing we know
with confidence about scientists and researchers is that they are
able to innovate; it is their very reason for existence.
It is long past time that the UK updated animal welfare
legislation to reflect the ethical and humane rights of animals
and to improve animal welfare standards domestically, as so many
of us want. It is also past time that we worked internationally
to better animal welfare standards globally. New approach
methodologies do not use animals and so avoid the inherent
cruelty and the problem of animal-human species differences. They
use advanced in vitro and in silico technologies to model
diseases, test treatments and investigate biological processes in
humans. That should be the scientific focus instead of outdated,
unreliable animal experiments.
The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was important because it
enshrined the rights of sentient animals, but it did not go far
enough. It did not recognise the rights of sentient animals
undergoing scientific testing and in Ministry of Defence military
experiments. That glaring omission must be corrected. We in the
SNP condemned that omission at the time and on Report tabled two
amendments to correct it, but the Government voted them down.
The European Union is moving away from cruel experiments on
animals and is using cutting-edge replacements, as evidenced by
the European Parliament’s vote in favour of developing an action
plan to phase animals out of EU science and regulation. It is
vital that the UK Government support a new regulatory environment
that enables a transition to new approach methodologies.
In 2020, 77 scientists and academics from Animal Free Research UK
signed an open letter to the Government and medical agencies
calling for a clear timetable for regulatory change to enable the
development of medicines without the use of animal testing, and
indicating that investment in human-relevant science is a golden
opportunity to revitalise medical research, save money, create
wealth and improve public health. Last month, leading scientists
in human-specific technologies wrote to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer asking him to consider providing Government support to
unlock the potential of future-focused technologies in the
upcoming spring Budget; specifically, they recommend tax relief
for companies developing and using these cutting-edge
technologies, a bold funding call to industry and academia, and
transition grants to facilitate a shift away from animal use.
While the Government appear content to let the status quo
continue, sentient animals continue to endure horrific and
unnecessary suffering, and our constituents continue to be
horrified as they look on, helpless, at a Government who are
simply not listening to them. Swathes of the respected scientific
community and renowned academics also feel that they are not
being listened to. It is past time that this unenlightened and
unnecessary torturing and testing on our fellow creatures ended,
and I hope that the Minister will act without delay. I and many
other MPs have been and will continue to be a voice for the
voiceless and a voice for common sense. I hope that the
Minister’s response today will show that he is ready to add his
voice to this growing chorus, which also will benefit science and
public health.
5.21pm
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame
Caroline.
I acknowledge the strength of public feeling about animal
testing. Together, the petitions that we are debating today
received more than 140,000 signatures, including 114 in Newcastle
upon Tyne Central. I thank everyone who signed the petitions for
bringing these important issues to be debated in Parliament once
again. The petitioners are calling for an end to the use of dogs
in testing and research in the UK, an end to the use of animals
in toxicity testing, and the prioritisation of non-animal
methods, which are key issues.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() on his expert introduction
to the debate, and all those who have made speeches or
intervened. All the contributions have been very well informed
and thoughtful.
As the Opposition spokesperson in the debate, I state clearly and
emphasise that the Labour party believes that the unnecessary
suffering of defenceless animals is unequivocally wrong. The
Labour party was founded to support the rights of working people,
and I believe strongly that human rights and animal rights are
intrinsically linked. Those who are cruel to animals or ignore
their rights often do the same to humans, so recognising and
standing up for the rights of animals is an important part of
Labour’s record. From the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the
cruel practice of hunting with dogs, to the Animal Welfare Act
2006, which put in place strong domestic protections for pets,
livestock and wild animals, we have used the power of Government
to protect animals. We introduced the offence of causing
unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting, and we
banned the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998. The
last Labour Government had a record to be proud of and, if we are
privileged to form the next Government, we will build on that
legacy.
The British people expect nothing less because, as Members have
pointed out, we are a nation of animal lovers. As the hon. Member
for Bath () said, the RSPCA was founded
in 1824—60 years before the founding of the National Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I do not think that
reflects a hierarchy of concern, but it does reflect the extent
to which we are concerned about the welfare of animals, and it is
no wonder. Animals improve the welfare of humans in many ways,
ranging from providing companionship and improving mental health,
to facilitating rescues during natural disasters. Animals serve
as the best companions, offering emotional support and reducing
feelings of loneliness. Domesticated animals can help people to
recover from severe illnesses, and they help us in speech
therapy, occupational therapy and further physical
rehabilitation.
On Thursday, I visited St Paul’s CofE Primary School in Elswick,
Newcastle. I asked them what they wanted from Parliament, and top
of the list was an end to food poverty and a support dog. Animal
welfare and the love of animals are at the heart of British
society and culture. As the shadow Minister for science, research
and innovation, my priority is to enable the best possible
science in this country, which will deliver the best possible
outcomes for people across the UK, people across the world and, I
believe, animals as well.
Since the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
1986, animal testing practices have improved. The three
Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—have already been
mentioned, and they remain worthy principles. As the right hon.
Member for Camborne and Redruth () emphasised, however, many
people are rightly distressed and concerned by the scale and, at
times, severity of animal testing. Over 1.5 million experimental
procedures involving animals were carried out in 2022; 4% of
those were assessed as non-recovery—that is to say, the animal
died—and almost 4% again were classed as severe.
There are real reasons to foresee a better future. We are in the
midst of a scientific and technological revolution that is
transforming the economy, society and the conduct of science
itself. Non-animal or new approach methods—NAMs—for scientific
research are developing at great pace, enabled by advances in
artificial intelligence and engineering biology. It is true that
there are currently limits to the efficacy of NAMs, but that is
becoming less true with each passing year and, as has been
pointed out during the debate, there are clear limits to the
efficacy of animal testing. Cell cultures, advanced modelling and
donor tissues are already helping to reduce the use of animals in
testing. In cosmetics, we have seen great success in using NAMs
to predict skin sensitisation. A 2018 study found that they were
even better than the once-standard mouse test.
One of the petitions calls for an end to the use of dogs in
testing. Dogs currently cannot be used in testing if any other
species could be used, but in 2022 4,122 dogs were experimented
on. I thank the 31,350 people who signed the petition, including
18 of my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. The other
petition calls for an end to toxicity testing in favour of NAMs,
and I thank the 109,378 people, including 96 of my constituents,
who signed it. The two petitions naturally overlap. For example,
beagles are used for toxicity testing; they are injected, fed
poisonous chemicals and asphyxiated in their numbers. It is
impossible not to feel for these animals.
At the same time, we must recognise that advocates of that type
of testing will argue that it is necessary to save human lives,
as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford () highlighted so
powerfully.
For the record, I do not advocate or support any testing on dogs,
particularly in the manner that the hon. Lady described. My point
was that some past research on animals has enabled a great many
positive outcomes for cancer patients, such as myself.
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was not implying
support for a specific type of testing, but making a general
point: some have argued in the past that animal testing has been
necessary to save human lives, and groups such as Understanding
Animal Research argue that currently. Understanding Animal
Research also gives the example of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a
lethal childhood disease, as a condition where canine models are
effective.
Science and innovation can show the way out of this moral maze.
To take the example of testing on dogs, NC3Rs, the UK’s National
Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals
in Research, has established a project to develop a virtual
second species—a virtual dog—using historical data. On toxicity
testing, the UK-based company XCellR8 has developed the AcutoX
test as a humane alternative to the LD50 test, which involves
giving increasing doses of toxic substances to groups of animals
until 50% of them are killed.
Just this month, Newcells Biotech, a spinout from Newcastle
University based in my constituency, raised over £2 million from
the North East Fund for its models of the retina, kidney and
lung, which are used in drug development and which reduce
reliance on animal testing. The chief executive officer, Dr Mike
Nicholds, told me:
“Over the last 10 years, advances in stem cell biology, 3-D
bioprinting and high-content analytical methods such as
transcriptomics have revolutionised our ability to build
laboratory mimics of human tissues that can reduce the use of
animals in the early stages of drug discovery. Pioneered in
academia, these approaches are now established in mainstream
biotech and importantly the regulators have moved to increasingly
accept these non-animal models as reliable. Innovations such as
retinal organoids, produced by Newcells Biotech, are being used
globally to support the development of drugs that cure blindness,
demonstrating the power of these new alternatives.”
He went on to say:
“While the prospect of fully replacing animal testing is likely
to be at least a decade away, that prospect is no longer beyond
the horizon and certainly significant reductions in animal
testing will be driven through innovation and awareness within
this timescale.”
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Although these
technologies are developing year on year, they have been around
for some time. She said 10 years, and some would say that some of
them have been around for closer to 20 years. Why does she think
we have not seen a corresponding fall in the number of animal
tests to date? Does she believe that the current project
licensing regime is rigorous enough?
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I thank him for
it. In his speech, he talked about some of the challenges around
the existing regime. We have seen a huge growth in science, and
in biotech specifically, which may, unfortunately, have led to
increases in animal testing. But it is also true that the
regulatory regime needs to reflect the advances in technology,
and I will go on to talk about that.
As well as chips and organoids, we have techniques such as
proteogenomics, single-cell sequencing and access to human cell
types that we did not previously have. For example, bit.bio, a
leading UK cell-coding company, is able to manufacture human
neurons that were previously available only through brain
surgery. With such advances, I am certain that our brilliant
scientists and innovators can help provide workable alternatives
to animal testing. Given our country’s strengths in artificial
intelligence and data science, Britain can be at the forefront of
this scientific revolution, which will make animal testing a
thing of the past.
I would, however, like to ask the Minister whether he considers
that a priority. Estimates show that NAMs receive as little as
0.2% to 0.6% of UK medical research funding. Being a first mover
in this field will bring with it jobs, investment, economic
growth and better animal welfare. Will he therefore explain what
the Government are doing to support British scientists and to
incentivise them to proactively seek to use NAMs in British labs,
creating a customer base to pull through new labs?
Before I entered Parliament, I worked for the regulator Ofcom, so
I know that regulation can drive innovation and open up
competition—or be a barrier to it. Labour is proposing a
regulatory innovation office to help ensure that regulation does
the former, not the latter. We need to take a proactive approach
to ensuring that regulation reflects emerging methods of research
if we are to drive forward scientific discovery and trials while
reducing animal testing.
With these new technologies, there is a huge opportunity to
create new drugs much faster and for less money. Today, in the
US, it takes an average of 12 years and $1 billion to create a
drug, from initial filing with the FDA to FDA approval. These
tools can provide significantly better possible targets for a
therapy, reducing time and therefore costs.
Responsive, proactive regulation will help to improve the uptake
of new NAMs in accordance with the current regulations’
principles of replacement, thereby eliminating avoidable tests as
soon as is practical. That would help to assure the public that
their Government are moving in the right direction and doing
things proactively.
At the same time, our pro-innovation approach will create
opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to develop and
bring to market new NAMs, with a stable business environment and
a path to market. Our ambition is clear, and the views of Members
here today are well known. The opportunity is there to support
NAMs development, drive the replacement of animal testing and
support the welfare of all life—animal and human alike.
That will not happen overnight, and animal testing in human
health has long been embedded in our pharma sector. However, we
will not advance human therapies and cures, as we should, if we
continue to rely on animals that do not get the diseases that
humans suffer from.
5.36pm
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline,
and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and
Wallington () for opening today’s
important debate. As this is the first time I have spoken since,
let me also commend him for his personal bravery when he spoke at
the most recent Prime Minister’s questions.
The number of signatories to these petitions—I think almost all
hon. Members have mentioned it—indicates the strength of public
feeling on this matter. This is not the first time that this
issue has been debated, although it is my first time. Although I
think none of us would want such a debate to become an annual
event, this is absolutely the right forum in which to debate
these important matters. I therefore congratulate all those who
have contributed and everybody who has signed the petitions.
I completely understand that the use of animals in science,
including in toxicity testing, is a sensitive issue. More than
that, I believe that everyone here would share my view that the
day cannot come quickly enough when we are able to end the
practice of animal testing. It is to hasten that moment that, as
hon. Members have observed, the UK is one of the world’s leading
nations in the development of non-animal methods. The Government
are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible, and
I heard some frustration or concern from colleagues about the
pace of adoption where the scientific methods exist. It is fair
to say that most hon. Members accept—I have met charities and
organisations working in the sector, including Animal Free
Research UK—that we are not quite at that moment when we can
fully replace animal testing.
To a degree, we are all in what my hon. Friend the Member for
Chatham and Aylesford () eloquently called that “mess
of complexity”, but that does not mean that we are not clear
about the direction of travel and the goal that we seek over
time. As the Science and Research Minister, I take extremely
seriously my responsibility within the multiple Departments that
my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth () talked about.
The Government are supporting and accelerating advances in
biomedical science and technology to reduce reliance on the use
of animals in research. When we hear data points about the
percentage of research money that is spent, it is important to
remember that not all of that research is clearly labelled as
non-animal research. Developments in respect of artificial
intelligence, cell cultures, cell research, understanding the
function of human organs, and better imaging can all contribute
to the advance of non-animal methods that can be put to work in
this space. Indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle
ex vivo analysis upon Tyne Central () about the very successful spin-out from her
university, and we are seeing that sort of development elsewhere.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said,
the rate of growth has been exponential, and this is an amazing
moment in science of all kinds. There have been extraordinary
advances in non-invasive techniques, such as medical imaging,
sensing and ex vivo analysis, which are revolutionising human
healthcare.
Through UK Research and Innovation, the Government are actively
supporting and funding the development and dissemination of the
three Rs, and I will have more to say about that later. Anyone
who was not familiar with the three Rs when they came here today
is probably more familiar with them now. They stand, first, for
the replacement of the use of animals where it is not necessary
for research, which I think is the aim we all share. Then, there
is the reduction in the use of animals in the meantime, and the
latest figures I have, which are slightly more recent than the
ones my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington
referred to, show a 10% reduction in the use of animals in
research. I do not want to over-weight any particular year’s
numbers, and we will have to look through and see the continued
reduction we all seek. However, the latest data I have, for 2022,
showed a 10% reduction. Finally, in addition to replacement and
reduction, there is refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to
those animals that are involved. All of that is achieved
primarily, but not exclusively, through the approximately £10
million of funding per year that goes to NC3Rs, the national
centre for the three Rs. We heard of other examples, including
Queen Mary University of London’s centre for animal research,
which is also doing great work in this area.
We have also heard that the use of animals in science lies at the
intersection of two important public goals. There are the
benefits to humans and animals—a lot of the research benefits
animals themselves—and to the environment, as we seek to have the
very highest standards of environmental protection. But we must
also balance that with the UK’s proud commitment to the highest
possible levels of animal welfare. That is why, as we heard from
a number of Members, the use of animals in testing is strictly
limited to specific purposes, including assessing the safety of
medicines or chemicals, protecting human health and protecting
the environment—a lot of research goes on into compounds to
understand their downstream effect on our rivers, lakes, oceans
and natural habitats.
We also heard that the use of animals in scientific procedures is
permitted only if there is no non-animal alternative available,
and I will try to address some of the remarks that have been made
specifically about the way in which that legal principle, laid
down by Parliament in legislation, is applied in practice and
whether it is as effective as my right hon. Friend the Member for
Camborne and Redruth would like.
Despite the general legal protections, some animal testing of
chemicals is required under UK law to protect the environment,
but such testing is permitted only once it is established that no
alternative exists, and it is dependent on the chemical and
quantity being manufactured.
As I said, we are world-renowned for our leadership in this
space, and we should continue to be alive and open to what other
countries are doing. The example of Canada was mentioned, and
some of the work I have done and the meetings I have had have
focused precisely on how we can ensure that the UK remains the
best place in the world in terms of the legislative framework and
the science and how we can ensure that non-animal technologies
and the constant advances in them are reflected in policy,
practice, legislation in this place and animal research
regulations.
Since it was established, the NC3Rs has invested in total almost
£90 million in research and £27 million in contracts through its
CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based
institutions, with that funding mainly focused on approaches for
safer assessment of pharmaceuticals. The UKRI Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Council—a different body—supports research
aimed at developing and applying innovative methods to study
human and animal physiology, including in silico approaches,
organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture
systems.
Despite that funding, I believe that more can be done. Ahead of
today’s debate, I asked UKRI that we double our investment in
research to achieve the three Rs and develop non-animal
alternatives. I can announce that, from £10 million this year,
that investment will reach £20 million per annum across the
system in fiscal year 2024-25, which is a doubling of what is
given to research in this space. In addition—I hope this is
welcome across the House—I can announce that this summer,
following on from work done by my predecessors and across other
Departments, the Government will publish a plan to accelerate the
development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to
reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. The former
Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and
Redruth, will recognise some of the impedance on a Minister at
the Dispatch Box, but I can see no reason why that plan could not
at least consider some of the machinery-of-government changes
that he talked about.
I think everyone will welcome the significant increase in funding
that the Minister has pledged today to support research on
non-animal methods, but is his Department at all curious why the
number of animals used in experiments has not gone down, despite
huge increases in technology in this area? As part of a review of
the licensing process for projects, would he consider trying to
get us some analysis of whether the decision to grant a licence
is objective, or subjective and based on something that some
ethical committee claims?
My right hon. Friend makes a very good set of points, and that is
something that we will look at further. I am already in
discussion about the efficacy of the licensing regime with the
noble Lord Sharpe, who is the Home Office Minister
responsible.
As the Minister stands here today, how confident is he that the
regulatory bodies that monitor these matters are sufficiently
well versed and up to date with placement and reduction
opportunities to prevent unnecessary testing? Does he have
confidence in that system?
The hon. Lady asks a very detailed question, and she has made
some statements that I would like to verify anyway. I was
concerned to hear about dogs being shot or blown up and I would
ask her, if she has evidence of that, please to share it with me.
That would be a subject of great concern and perhaps bring to
life some points in the regulatory system that have not crossed
my desk to date. I take that matter very seriously, but it is
also important that these debates are led by the facts, and I
will let the facts decide the efficacy of the regulatory
system.
We will produce the plan together with not only officials but the
very widest group of stakeholders. In the coming weeks, a
cross-Government group will convene to lead that work, and we
will consult stakeholders across the industry, academia, medical
research charities and those operating in this space. The
commitment is to publish that detailed plan this summer.
Given the support for the petitions and the strong interest in
this issue, on which Members of Parliament are regularly
petitioned, I can announce today that we will restart the public
attitudes to animal research survey, which was unfortunately
delayed during the pandemic. It is important to me, and I am sure
to the House, that these debates are informed by that survey. It
was seen as a very useful tool for those working in this space,
and I am keen that it is restarted. The next survey will take
place in the coming months and the results will be published this
autumn, restarting that chronological series about public
attitudes.
We talked about how animals in science are highly regulated, and
I hear the concerns about that process. Understandably, as with
any regulatory process, different people will have different
views about efficacy. There is a three-tier system of licensing,
at the establishment, project and individual level. Again, I
thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and
Redruth made a very thoughtful contribution; perhaps I will meet
him to benefit from some of his insights on that. He talked about
the importance of having qualified vets in the process. It is
important to say that there are qualified vets, and the Animals
in Science Committee oversees that process and advises the Home
Office on it.
However, endemic in any regulatory or licensing regime is the
danger—I do not say that this is indeed the case— of incumbent
thinking. My right hon. Friend talked about there not being
enough challenge in the process. One potential way of putting in
more challenge—or nudging—is increasing the fees for licences,
which the Home Office is going to do shortly. My right hon.
Friend talked about a levy. This is not a levy, but by increasing
the fees, and therefore the burden, we will perhaps shift some of
the presumption away from defaulting to testing with animals.
In addition, the Home Office will review the duration of
licences. The current duration is typically five years. We have
observed the fast rate of change in technology. The Home Office
will review the duration to see whether a shorter licence period
would be more appropriate, and whether people coming back more
often would put more challenge into the system.
In conclusion, I want to be clear: it is the Government’s
position that we want to replace the use of animals in scientific
procedures with non-animal alternatives wherever we can. For now,
the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research
remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider
environment. That is why our current approach is to continue to
support and fund the development, dissemination and adoption of
techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in
research, and to ensure that the regulatory framework is both
robust in law and rigorous in practice. I thank hon. Members for
their insightful and thoughtful contributions to today’s debate,
and I look forward to working together going forward.
5.53pm
Do not worry, Dame Caroline; I do not intend to take the full
remaining hour and a half to wind up. I thank the petitioners for
bringing this topic to the House for us to debate, and I thank
colleagues for their contributions.
I want to clarify for the record something I said earlier about
the non-publication of data. I was referring to detailed
information on procedures by establishment type—in other words,
whether the venture is a commercial or an academic one—which
ceased being published in 2021, and the annual publication of
technical summaries for project licences that are granted. I may
have inadvertently suggested that we stopped publishing data on
how many procedures took place; I just want to clarify that that
is not the case.
I thank again all the organisations, campaign groups, charities
and others, many of whom are represented in the Public Gallery,
for briefing me and colleagues in advance of today’s debate. I
thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne
and Redruth (), who made an incredibly
detailed and knowledgeable contribution, and my hon. Friend the
Member for Chatham and Aylesford (). I particularly enjoyed her
description of her “melting in a mess of complexity”—a great
Tinder profile if ever I heard one. I will certainly be investing
in that.
I thank the Minister for his response. Regulars at petitions
debates will know how frustrating it is to come here only to hear
a response stating why the status quo is to continue; it is rare
that we leave with nuggets of future policy. The restarting of
the public attitudes survey, the doubling of investment next
year, the Home Office review of licence duration and fees, and
that all-important plan are excellent steps in the right
direction. I am grateful that he was able to make some
announcements during the debate, and I am sure that the
organisations that are represented in the Public Gallery and that
briefed Members will want to engage with the Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology in order to feed into the
plan. I am very grateful for that announcement. As we have made
clear, if we do not make any progress, we will be back next year
talking about exactly the same thing, because that is what the
petitioners expect of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 633591 and 645885
relating to animal testing and non-animal research methods.
|
