Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell). I am honoured to be Bournemouth East’s Member of Parliament, representing the issues that matter to my town, and dog welfare is an important one. Bournemouth is a town of dog lovers: we care deeply about the safety of dogs. As a dog lover, it is upsetting that laboratories across the country experiment on dogs and defend their methods as being in the public interest. It is not in the public interest to harm dogs, nor is it good science. Animal testing is poor science, plain and simple. We must start treating man’s best friend better. As the Labour MP for Bournemouth East, I will always stand up for animals because they do not have a voice, and I will always stand up for dog lovers because they rightly use their voice to promote animal welfare. It is time for change, and that means legislation to end the use of dogs in scientific experiments. I support Herbie’s law.

In a time of heated debate, I think we can all agree on one fundamental point: dogs are brilliant. With that in mind, we need to do more. I want to thank, in my constituency, Cara and Linda in Muscliff, Jane in Pokesdown, Vanessa in Southbourne and Kate in Charminster for sharing their important views on this issue. As Kate says, every minute, five animals are suffering in experiments in British laboratories, even when non-animal are often cheaper and more reliable.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could add to his thanks list Lorna Harries, the professor of molecular genetics at the University of Exeter, who has pioneered alternative approaches that can replace some of the experimental techniques that have been used on dogs.

[Tom Hayes]

I agree; the voices of scientific experts in this area are critical, and I welcome his intervention.

I thank everyone from my constituency who has contacted me about this important issue, including the 336 constituents who signed the petition. I also thank animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA on Richmond Park Road in my constituency, and Every Paw Matters, which I have spent time with.

In fact, we are such a town of dog lovers that the 110th mayor, Councillor George Farquhar, and his wife Alison, have rescued a greyhound called Billy and now have him as the official non-human consort of the mayor. Billy will wear a wrap that says “My human votes Labour” when it is election time, but when he is serving as the non-human consort, he will happily just wear a replica chain. That shows just how much Bournemouth loves dogs—[Laughter.] That is the right response.

To anyone who says we need dog testing, they are wrong. Dogs are most commonly used in secondary species testing, where, after a test happens on a mouse or a rat, researchers do a secondary test on another species, which is often a dog. But the industry says that secondary species testing is unnecessary. We know that non-animal methods can be much more accurate than using animal experiments.

I commend other leading voices in this field, including the local business Lush, which is based in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and which shows how we can do better through science. Lush has never tested on animals since its doors opened in 1995, and it has funded over £2.7 million in research and science to end animal testing. It has an annual prize to reward scientists and educators who use non-animal methods and contribute to important scientific breakthroughs. It is truly leading the way.

There are things that the Government could do in the immediate term and the short term. It is wrong that so few inspectors are looking at over 3 million-plus procedures. The industry is marking its own homework. In the immediate term, we need more inspectors. We need a ban on secondary species testing, and exclusive reliance on non-animal research methods. In the short term, we need legislation that fully protects animals.

As a national of animal lovers, we are falling behind. The UK was the first country to create animal protection laws in 1822. We were the first to set up an animal welfare charity—the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The European Union is moving further and faster away from the UK in tackling these cruel experiments on animals and dogs. We must catch up.

No other party has such a strong track record of protecting animals. I am proud to sit in a tradition that includes Keir Hardie, who died in 1915 carrying a pocket watch bitten by a favourite pit pony, having done much to secure better conditions for pit ponies. For our Labour Government, this should be unfinished business. Labour banned the cruel practice of hunting with dogs, and it banned deer hunting and hare coursing. It protected pets, livestock and wild animals, and combated international trade in animal products from any endangered species. It brought in a ban on the use of veal crates in the UK, banned fur farming and created the principle of a duty of care to meet welfare needs. Labour made it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting. Labour banned cosmetic product testing on animals.

We passed the most comprehensive reform of animal welfare law in over a century. The last Labour Government stood up for animals. Starting with the provision of a right to have pets inside the rented household, we are back on track. However, back in power after 14 years, this Labour Government could go further. We can truly protect dogs and animals once again.

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition on this important topic. Thank you for calling me now, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will not speak for too long, because there are so many Government Members who are keen to take part in this important debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) on bringing this private Member’s Bill to the House and all the different people, companies, charities and organisations that he has worked with as part of the campaign to drive it forwards. I do feel for him, as I know what it is like for a Back Bencher in the party of Government to navigate the challenges of trying to use a private Member’s Bill—I have had two ballot Bills myself—as a campaign vehicle to drive change. I therefore hope that he will forgive me for some of the comments I shall make about the content of this Bill.

We can only deal with the text of the Bill before us, which was only published in the past few days, so my comments will necessarily reflect the detail of the hon. Member’s proposals. In a sense, this debates reminds me of Schrödinger’s cat, in that Members have made equally reference to a former Bill and a current Bill in their speeches. It feels like we are having a debate on a Bill that could have been and a debate on the Bill in front of us. Indeed, the hon. Member’s speech spoke to the lack of a need for further research, but equally the Bill calls for further research to take place.

We have heard some fantastic contributions from all parts of the House. I would like to note the contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who reiterated the importance of driving forward change. Many stories and personal declarations have been shared about the impact of social media and the difficulty of parenting at this time. I should declare that I am also a parent, although thankfully my children are not at the stage when they have started consuming social media in the way that I have heard others talk about today.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the debate and how it has dwelled in part on the importance of evidence and research. Does he agree that the reason we have so much evidence is that, as MPs, we speak with so many children? I have in my hand letters from children in years 5 and 6 at St James’ Church of England primary academy, and if I may quote briefly from Eleanor and River, they say

“kids will also be exposed to inappropriate content such as unsuitable videos and pictures. They could feel unsafe, discouraged or exposed, and then they would not be able to unsee the images again.”

Does the hon. Member agree that we should be shielding children from that sort of content?

[Dr Spencer]

I am going to resist the temptation to be drawn into a discussion about research methodology in this area, although I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am very tempted to talk about the importance of case series data and qualitative data in terms of what people are telling us and what we are seeing ourselves, compared with cross-sectional or longitudinal studies or cluster studies looking at the impact of different schools. What I will say is that the stories of what children are being exposed to that we have heard in this debate and that we have all heard from our constituents are horrific—I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Clearly, we need to protect children from that.

At the heart of the Bill is the desire to drive forward our scientific understanding of the effects of smartphone and social media use on children’s mental health, learning and social development. I hope we hear a commitment from the Minister that the Government will conduct a detailed review in this complex area where so much is at stake, but I would also expand it further. Any analysis must take a clear-eyed approach to both the advantages and disadvantages offered by technological developments such as smartphones and internet access, looking at both the benefits to young people of increased connectivity and access to information, and even apps that help to manage health conditions such as diabetes at school and away from home, which will transform the lives of children and young people, and the increasing body of research that demonstrates the damaging effects of excessive smartphone and social media use on children and adolescents.

Creative Industries

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

At the weekend, the innovation, energy and entrepreneurship of the creative community in my constituency was on full display. Off Season Margate—part of our shared commitment to developing a year-round economy—was a weekend-long, town-wide exhibition of art created by a wide range of skilled creators, initiated by the award-winning artist Lindsey Mendick. From oil paints to embroidery, sculpture to ceramics and photography to screen prints, a whole range of skills were on display in the form of incredible art.

This was a democratic exercise in the power of creativity, involving world-renowned artist Tracey Emin and raw artists—people displaying their work in front rooms and cafés, as well as galleries, telling their stories, and reflecting their experience of the world through art. The weather played its part, because the sun was shining. Margate was buzzing. It was a clear demonstration of my three key arguments today: first, creativity is valuable not just because it is enjoyed by the consumers, but because it benefits the creators. They must be appreciated. Secondly, the creative industries have a crucial role to play in revitalising our coastal communities, where so many creatives choose to live. Thirdly, if this fundamental element of our society and economy is to thrive, we must develop the pipeline—the next generation of artists—by enshrining creativity in our national curriculum.

However, if we think of creativity simply as an industry, we lose something that makes it special. Creativity is fundamental to the human condition. It is woven into our daily lives and our history. The first example of civilisation is carvings on the walls of caves. Those people chose to record the world around them. They chose to leave a mark. They expressed themselves and the lives they lived. The need to express ourselves flows through human history and exists in every single one of us, but the ability to tap into it is artificially limited by an inequality of access to the arts. That is a failure of previous Governments, and because of it, we have fewer skilled creators and less well-rounded individuals, and society is depleted.

Talent is found everywhere in our country, but as so many hon. Members have pointed out, opportunity is not. If we do not allow every child the right to an arts education, we will miss out on the next Tracey Emin or Bob and Roberta Smith. The damage done to creative education by the introduction of the English baccalaureate and Progress 8, which led to a dramatic fall in the number of students taking up arts-based subjects, must be reversed at the earliest opportunity. I support that campaign, alongside Members from across the House who share my concern about the impact of those changes on our children, our society and our economy. How can we expect the creative industries to come anywhere close to their potential when the education system is actively dissuading children from studying creative subjects? Every arts subject is important, and every child deserves an arts education. As my badge from the Royal Academy of Arts says,

“Art is a serious subject.”

Art is never more serious than for children with special educational needs, for whom creative education is a vital tool allowing them to access learning and live their fullest lives. Sammy’s Foundation was set up by my constituent Patricia Alban after the tragic death of her son. Sammy had a rare genetic disease and autism and was unable to attend mainstream schools, but he found his passion and skill in craft. The foundation now helps other children with disabilities to learn heritage crafts as a way of uncovering their talents and to lead meaningful, connected lives with a sense of purpose. Considering we have a huge skills gap in our heritage crafts sector, it feels to me that it is a win-win to invest in arts education that harnesses the aptitudes of neurodivergent children, preparing them for purposeful and rewarding work creating beautiful things and contributing to the economy, rather than seeing them as a problem to be managed.

As well as inequality of access to the arts, there is inequality of reward. According to research from the University of Glasgow, the median income for visual artists is £12,500 a year—a 40% decrease in earnings since 2010. That is almost 50% lower than the income of a full-time minimum wage worker. On top of that, one in three creative industry workers is freelance.

When discussing the rise of AI and the challenges it poses for artists, my constituents are far from the luddites that some would like to dismiss them as. Polling from the Design and Artists Copyright Society shows that 84% of artists would agree to license their work for AI training so long as they received fair pay for it. However, they know that the fundamental act of creation is something that will always differentiate that which a machine has learned from what a human has made. Their right to have that work protected, and their freedom to engage with AI on their terms, is something on which I and many others will continue to seek reassurances from the Government.

This is not about resisting change; it is about bringing in change in a fair and equitable way. This is already a sector with low pay and a lack of security. If we do not put in proper safeguards, we will end up making jobs in this sector even more unappealing for those whose passion is to work in it. Data from the Creators’ Rights Alliance shows that 30% of photographers have already lost clients due to generative AI, while 26% of illustrators and 36% of translators have reported losing work. Two thirds of writers believe generative AI will cost them future earnings. We cannot afford to lose the ideas and imagination of these people—they are the people building the amazing heritage of Thanet, to shape an economy that thrives all year round and creates a pipeline of art and skilled creatives for the whole country. They also project our soft power into the world.

The benefits of investment in the creative sector in coastal communities is demonstrated by the Turner Contemporary in my constituency, which has contributed to a lively ecosystem around the visual arts, among many other things—all without a university to support it. I look forward to there being a coastal dimension to the creative industrial strategy that can engender similar vibrancy and sustain such initiatives for the long term.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I, too, represent a coastal seat, and I, too, know how coastal seats have been forgotten as part of the national story about our creativity. Bournemouth is the resting place of Mary Shelley and was home to Robert Louis Stevenson, and it is also home to many institutions such as Bournemouth University, the Arts University Bournemouth, the Russell-Cotes art museum and gallery and the Boscombe Arts Depot. The list could really go on—but I will not go on. Does my hon. Friend agree that coastal communities such as ours, which have voted Labour for the first time in a very long time—perhaps even for the first time—need their Labour Government to focus on their creative possibilities and to support the jobs and skills of the future?

[Ms Billington]

Coastal communities across the country are often places people escape to in order to find a place where they can really thrive. That is why coastal areas will be so important in developing a proper creative industry strategy.

East Thanet has long been an engine room for our country’s creative industries. If its future is to be as glorious as its past, and if we are to continue to use our soft power globally through our internationally famous artists and creators, creativity needs to be valued in and of itself. Creators need to be able to create with dignity and security, and all generations should be able to access art education to enhance their lives and society as a whole.