Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act
Debate between Kit Malthouse and John Nicolson(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kit Malthouse
I am not aware of why we have not published the outcome of the consultation. Section 24, however, only blocks public officials from releasing information given in confidence, and it came into place before the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It has never been used alone since the Freedom of Information Act came into effect, and information is released on a regular basis—a couple of times a week, in frequency terms—under the terms of that 2000 Act, so it is not correct to say that it is section 24 that is restricting access. I understand, from my officials, that the consultation response will be issued later this year, as part of the work of the policy unit, which I will say more about shortly.
I turn to the use and regulation of dogs in science. The use of purpose-bred dogs for research in the United Kingdom is not prohibited under the ASPA. However, the use of stray dogs is prohibited. Under ASPA, dogs, together with cats, horses and non-human primates, are specially protected species. That means that greater oversight is required of establishments holding those species, and of projects using them.
No dogs are authorised for use within the United Kingdom if the scientific objective can be achieved without using animals, or by using animals of less sentience. As with all projects approved under ASPA, all projects proposing to use dogs in research must justify why any animals need to be used, why dogs need to be used and why the specific number of dogs and exact procedures are required.
Most dogs used in science are required for the safety testing of potential new medicines, in line with international requirements designed to protect human health. Dogs are a species often used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, which means that they suffer from similar diseases, such as diabetes, epilepsies, and cancers. The dog genome has been sequenced and mutations mapped, so dogs are incredibly important in basic research such as on muscular dystrophy, where there is a known mutation in dogs.
Research using dogs has been instrumental in the development of more than 95% of all new chemical medicines approved for use in the European Union in the last 20 years. That has included medications for use in treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and specific genetic disorders. Establishments that either breed dogs for use in science elsewhere or conduct regulated procedures on dogs are required to provide care and accommodation to those dogs in line with the published code of practice for that purpose. Adherence to that code of practice, and to all other standard conditions applied to any establishment licence, is assessed by the regulator as part of its compliance assurance programme.
Establishments breeding, supplying or using dogs in science are contributing to critical activities to protect human health and advance scientific progress. They are operating legally within a regulatory framework that requires licensure and assessment of their compliance.
John Nicolson
That is a long litany of justification, but perhaps the Minister would address just one specific point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk raised: what is the scientific or ethical justification for pouring chemicals into the stomachs of puppies without using anaesthetics? Could he address just that point?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman obviously uses emotive language to describe a practice that, I understand, is called gavage, where the feeding of compounds into the stomachs of dogs is done in such a way as to ensure a consistent dose at a consistent time for a consistent assessment. As the hon. Gentleman will know, very often the use of those chemicals is to assess two things: first, dosage and efficacy, and secondly, toxicity. I understand that that is the best method, scientifically.
Online Abuse
Debate between Kit Malthouse and John Nicolson
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate and outlining at the beginning the homophobic and racist abuse and the horrors of child abuse that we often see on the internet. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) described the many ways in which abuse can take place.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) issued a stark warning that children were losing their ability to empathise which we all found striking and interesting. I was particularly happy to hear her description of her doorstep visits to trolls. For a moment, I almost felt sorry for the pathetic creatures when I imagined her turning up and remonstrating with them.
Members have made a variety of speeches describing their personal experiences. I was struck by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) describing a victim’s terrifying experience online. Particularly moving, I thought, was my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) talking about her experiences of being at the receiving end of abuse from online cowards.
Today, we are all connected. We use the internet to conduct business, for entertainment and to connect with our friends through social media. Our mobile phones in our pockets ensure that we are available anytime, anywhere and that we can instantly share photos with family, friends and complete strangers. For the vast majority of people, that connectivity has enhanced our lives, but as the historian Melvin Kranzberg wrote in the first of his six laws of technology,
“Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
As we have heard, online abuse is one of the negative consequences of advances in online technology.
While social media can be a platform to share a happy family photograph, it can also be a platform to share content intended to humiliate with as large an audience as possible. While an iPhone can be a helpful tool in keeping in touch with friends, it can also be an instrument through which an individual is harassed and intimidated. While Twitter can provide an opportunity for witty banter, as Members of this House well know, it can also be used by cowardly bullies hiding behind anonymity to send abuse. As the debate has shown, all political parties have sent out strong and clear messages that this behaviour must be strenuously tackled, and we must consider every possible method of dealing with it, including strengthening existing legislation.
Children and young people are often the first to embrace and adapt to changes in technology. However, that also means that they are more likely to be victims of online abuse. Much of that abuse can come from their peers, and it has been exacerbated by the use of social media and the widespread availability of smartphones with cameras. In late 2004, happy slapping became a youth craze throughout the United Kingdom—many people have forgotten about it, but it was covered widely in the tabloids at the time. It involved filming minor acts of violence, such as hitting or slapping a victim, and then circulating the videos via Bluetooth on mobile phones. However, it escalated into more serious assaults, sexual assaults and, in some instances, manslaughter. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have provided further platforms for cowards. The intention of such videos is clearly to humiliate and intimidate the victim, to make them feel small and worthless, and to share their misery with the world, increasing the feeling that the whole world is against them. Rightly, these videos are roundly condemned. They are removed—sometimes—by site administrators. They are sometimes, but not often enough, investigated by the police.
Other types of abuse are more subtle and more difficult to act against. Embarrassing pictures or videos, altered photos, or photos and videos taken without an individual’s permission can be widely shared without consent. Classic bullying behaviour can manifest itself much more easily online. Victims can be ridiculed and singled out in group messages, rumours can be spread quickly and widely, and victims can be excluded from online activity. The ability to go online does not create bullying, but it helps it to go unnoticed away from the classroom and the playground.
Similarly, those who are most often targeted by conventional bullying are also targeted by online abuse. In February 2016 the UK Safer Internet Centre published a study that found that 24% of those 13 to 18-year-olds surveyed had been targeted due to their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or disability, or due to the fact that they were transgendered.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution. One key aspect of this abuse, which he has illustrated so well, is the ability for people on the internet to be anonymous. Is it time for the House to come to a view about whether we should allow internet anonymity to persist in this country?
John Nicolson
It is an interesting issue: do we have an entitlement to anonymity? Perhaps we do, and perhaps we should preserve that. However, I would have to think about that. My answer is I am not sure. I was interested in the suggestion by a Labour Member that Facebook and Twitter should use technology to identify certain troll words and that using them should result automatically in the suspension of the accounts concerned. Perhaps the Minister will address those issues, among others, in his speech, and perhaps he can go away and look at them later.
One in 25 of the young people who spoke about this issue in a variety of surveys said they were singled out for abuse all or most of the time. That is a horrendous thing for young people to have to deal with. Teenagers with disabilities, and especially teenagers from African-Caribbean, Asian, middle eastern and other minority groups, were much more likely to encounter cyber-bullying.
To target cyber-bullying north of the border, the Scottish Government have funded Respectme—an anti-bullying service that acts as a source of information for young people. It has created and made available publications to raise awareness of cyber-bullying. The service works particularly well with adults involved in the lives of children and young people, giving them the practical skills and confidence to deal with children who are bullied and those who bully others. Respectme is keen to stress that, no matter where bullying takes place, it needs to be challenged, and that is a message worth repeating: anyone suffering from bullying, whether online or not, must report it and stand up to it.
Online, children and young people are also in danger of sexual abuse. A recent study by UNICEF, which was published in June 2016, suggested that eight out of 10 18-year-olds worldwide believe they or their friends are in danger of being sexually abused or taken advantage of as a result of online activity. The ability to remain anonymous online, or to take on another identity, is a contributory factor; it leads to an increased likelihood of people receiving unwanted sexual comments, unsolicited explicit material or pressure to participate in sexual activity. As we have heard from many speakers today, that problem is also experienced by adult women, with applications such as Snapchat and Tinder often providing an easy way for men to harass them.
Another increasing phenomenon is revenge porn, which involves sharing private sexual images and recordings without consent and with the intention of causing harm. The revenge porn helpline has received almost 4,000 calls in the last year alone, with cases reported involving children as young as 11 years old. Furthermore, attempts to stigmatise women are extremely common. The think-tank Demos found that 10,000 tweets were sent from UK accounts in a single three-week period aggressively attacking individuals as a “slut” or a “whore”.
Women in public life are often prime targets for online abuse. In Scotland, the three largest political parties are led by women, two of them gay. All three women have to deal routinely with sexist, misogynistic and homophobic tweets. The Scottish Conservative party leader, Ruth Davidson, has suffered horrendous homophobic abuse, and has handled it with humour, honesty and courage.
Kit Malthouse
One revelation that has come out of the awful murder of Jo Cox is the amount of online abuse directed at Members of Parliament, but particularly female Members of Parliament—or, indeed, anybody who is not a heterosexual white male. Would it be appropriate for the parliamentary authorities to publish an annual report on the levels, content and types of abuse Members of Parliament receive? It comes as a surprise to most right-thinking members of the public to know that their Member of Parliament receives that kind of material.
John Nicolson
That is an absolutely excellent idea. One of the great things about this debate is that people have been able to share their experiences. I suspect that many Members—especially some of the men—are quite surprised to discover just how widespread the problem is, so that would be an excellent thing for the House to do.
In many ways, the online world has enhanced our democracy by allowing people to interact with politicians in a way they could not before. Robust political debate is part of our public life, and we must cherish it, even when it uses language we might not personally use. What cannot be tolerated, however, is people debasing political debate with threats of violence, insults and abuse based on misogyny, homophobia, sexism and racism.
Opposition to online abuse is something that unites all our political parties. However, it is not just politicians who suffer such online abuse when they are famous. High-profile television personalities, journalists, academics, actors and sports people are all subject to abuse, whether it is petty and crude or threatening and vicious.
Online, many people seem to lose a sense of themselves and say things that they would never dream of saying in person. Quite often when I get abuse, I make a point of writing to people to ask whether they can imagine saying such things to me in real life. Of course they cannot imagine it, so why on earth do they feel free to say it simply because it is online? However, hiding behind a pseudonym and a cartoon profile picture does not make the abuse any less real. We have a duty of care as politicians, and it is vital that we send out a strong message that online abuse is wrong always.
One clear message from this debate is that, as we have heard repeatedly, Twitter and Facebook are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to their response to online, and sometimes very violent, bullying. It seems that the House, across both sides and all parties, wants the Minister to tackle Facebook and Twitter on our behalf and, much more importantly, on behalf of all our constituents. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the matter.