Animal Testing

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 19th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (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.

[Kerry McCarthy (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?

[George Eustice]

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.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.

[George Eustice]

What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.

Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.

There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.

At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.

However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.

A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.

The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.

However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.

Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implementation of the Government food strategy published in June 2022.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Before answering this question, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record. In an urgent question to which I replied on 19 May, I stated:

“We are largely self-sufficient in wheat production, growing 88% of all the wheat that we need.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 839.]

In fact, we produce 88% of the cereals that we need and the figure for wheat is a little lower, at 81%.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me say that the food strategy has themes that are cross-cutting and have effects on policy in many other Departments. I can therefore confirm that the process of securing collective agreement meant that this issue was discussed exhaustively with Cabinet colleagues and other Departments.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy was an

“excellent plan to help people escape the ‘junk food cycle’”.

That is what the former Conservative leader William Hague said when he was writing in The Times a few weeks ago. He went on to describe the Government’s U-turn on implanting any of the recommendations in that strategy as

“intellectually shallow, politically weak and morally reprehensible”.

Was he right?

[George Eustice]

No, he was wrong, because we have implemented new point-of-sale restrictions, which take effect later this year, in October. That is already driving reformulation; so we have put in place policies that deliver on the issues highlighted in Henry Dimbleby’s report. As for advertising and bans on promotions, we do not believe that that is the right thing to do in the context of rising food prices.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we have decided this year to give the industry the confidence needed by bringing forward half of the BPS payment to July from December. That will help ease those cash-flow pressures. In the context of Lincolnshire, which has a particularly strong horticultural background, we have increased the number of visas so that farmers can have access to the labour they need.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. On Tuesday, at Foreign Office questions, the House paid tribute to the activists Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira, who were killed while working on the book “How to Save the Amazon”. Does the Secretary of State agree that our food chain is contaminated by products linked to deforestation, in particular livestock feed from imported soya that is grown in the region, and that we need to do much more to stamp that out and protect the work of activists seeking to expose this?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady raises a sad and tragic case, and our thoughts are with the affected families. On her specific question, she will know that we have introduced legislation to push for due diligence in supply chains; that will require producers in the UK to ensure there is due diligence right through their supply chain, in particular for forest-risk products.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Government promised a White Paper in response to the national food strategy within six months of its publication. That time runs out at the end of this month, so when are we going to see it? Please do not say “shortly” or “soon”.

[George Eustice]

We are working on it and it will be published in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In our response to the Godfrey review, we set out our approach to dealing with bovine tuberculosis in the next five years. In response to the specific question, we look at epidemiological assessments in individual areas to see where particular strains are present in both badgers and cattle, and that drives the decisions about where culling is necessary.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

  The Minister’s earlier answer on deforestation simply was not good enough. Why are the Government only consulting on due diligence measures to cover illegal deforestation, given that we know that many of the activities contributing to deforestation, for example, in the Amazon, are legal and that Bolsonaro for one is relaxing legal protections? We do not need a consultation to tell us that UK companies should not be complicit in destroying the Amazon, so will the Minister look at and support my amendment to the Environment Bill, which would require due diligence across the board?

[George Eustice]

As the Minister said earlier, we have a consultation out at the moment, and people will no doubt respond to it. But the evidence we have is that actually many of these countries do have laws in place and the issue is a failure to enforce those laws, and that is why we have consulted on that basis.

Environment Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Kerry McCarthy

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Bill will establish the Office for Environmental Protection, which will have the power to take public bodies to an upper tribunal if there are breaches of the law. Of course, there are remedies in such a process through the usual mechanism of court orders.

The Bill sets out a framework for setting and taking concrete steps towards achieving our ambitious, legally binding long-term targets, and chapter 2 will establish that new, powerful independent Office for Environmental Protection to provide expert, objective and impartial advice on environmental issues and to take a proportionate and transparent approach to issues of national importance concerning the enforcement of environmental law. The OEP will hold this and every future Government to account by reporting on the progress we have made to improve the natural environment, as set out in our published evidence-based environmental improvement plans and targets.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to make some progress.

The annual progress report we published last May showed that 90% of the highest-priority actions from our first 25-year environment plan, which will become our first improvement plan, have either been delivered or are on track. We have heeded the advice of both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). The OEP will enforce compliance with environmental law where needed, complementing and reinforcing the work of the world-leading Committee on Climate Change.