Commercial Breeding for Laboratories

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 16th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition. I know there was some anxiety among them that we would not do justice to it today, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for doing it more than justice. There appears to be a degree of consensus in the room, and I hope the Minister does not let us down at the end of the debate but indicates the way forward.

Breeding animals solely for the purpose of animal testing all too often condemns them to a life of suffering, culminating in a painful death. As we have heard, conditions in such breeding facilities have been shown to be unhygienic and cruel, with the animals exhibiting signs of extreme stress and frustration. That is just in the breeding facilities, and we know that the animals then go on to the laboratory, where who knows what they will have to endure. I do not want to repeat the stats and everything my colleagues have said, but I do want to endorse the point that the three Rs are clearly not working as they should, particularly when it comes to replacing animals in testing.

I do not think we will see a “big bang” moment at which animal testing just stops, so I want to focus on the five incremental steps where swift progress is possible. There is really no excuse not to act. First, we know that not all animal experiments are conducted for the purposes of medical research; many animals are still used in the development and testing of products such as food additives and pesticides. At one uni, researchers tested cannabis on, I think, rats to see whether it gave them the munchies—given that they were based at a university, I do not think they really needed to test on animals to come to a conclusion on that! After the ban on using animals for cosmetics testing, and the more recent ban on using them to test household products, will the Minister tell us what is next? Let us keep moving the issue forward.

Secondly, the Government could restrict the types of tests that are licensed. Colleagues of a similar age to me will remember the campaign to outlaw the infamous Draize test, whereby toxic substances were dripped into the eyes, or on to the skin, of healthy rabbits. I have recently had several robust discussions with Bristol University about its use of the forced swim test on mice to induce anxiety, fear and stress—all to collect data of questionable quality. That raises another point, which has come up in some of the figures that have been mentioned: is scientific curiosity a good enough reason to carry out endless tests on animals that do not actually yield results? Surely they should be used only when trying to reach a conclusion, not just out of curiosity.

Thirdly, the Government could build on the success of the primate testing ban by restricting the range of animals that can be tested on. As we have heard, MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire continues to breed 2,000 beagles each year, solely for animal testing. Beagles, as opposed to other dogs, are favoured for this kind of toxicity testing precisely because of their docile, compliant nature. They are either injected or force-fed poisonous chemicals, and they are asphyxiated before an autopsy is conducted to assess the effects on them. Dogs bred for testing have also been forced to inhale pesticides or have been deliberately given heart attacks. We have also heard that cats, horses and monkeys are still being used. I do not think any of my constituents would support the continued testing on beagles, and we could have a quick win on this issue if we outlawed that.

[Alexander Stafford]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, especially on the types of animals being used. It is abhorrent not only that dogs such as beagles and others, and horses, are used but that, as we have heard, they are increasingly being used. Some 3% more dogs, and more than 20% more horses, have been tested on this year. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with the physiology of these animals being so different from that of humans, we should not be increasing the number of dogs and horses that we are testing on? Does she agree that we should ban testing on dogs and horses?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree.

Fourthly, we could reduce the number of licences issued by simply encouraging greater transparency. We have heard about section 24 of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that from 2018 to 2021, every licence that was applied for was granted, but we need to know the figures; they need to be out in the public domain.

We also need to avoid duplication. I know that commercial interests come into play, but, particularly with the UK leaving REACH—the EU’s chemicals regulatory regime—there is a real danger that we could end up with even more tests having to be carried out when they are already being done elsewhere. I know that campaigners and scientists have called for data sharing, but it is just not happening.

Again, the Government have been very slow to respond. The Environmental Audit Committee did an inquiry into chemicals regulation post Brexit, which was notable mainly because the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), suggested that the British version of REACH should be called BREACH, which would not be ideal for a regulator. I hope the Minister can say a little about that.

My fifth and final point relates to what everyone has been saying about the development of NAMs and alternatives. I will not rehearse the arguments that have already been made about effectiveness, but I have certainly spoken about how effective animal testing is, as opposed to the non-animal methods that are being developed. Queen Mary University of London has set up its own unit. When I spoke to scientists who are involved in that, it was clear that there are real experts in the field who support a move away from animal testing and do not think it is effective. I will conclude on that point.

As I said, I am not expecting the Minister to say today that she is going to declare an end to animal testing. We want to see the three Rs—which have been Labour policy for a long time—being properly enforced, and I have suggested some ways in which she could make some progress in that regard.

Transport Decarbonisation Plan

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

Tarmac is made of oil, so when making roads, we need to go back to offsetting some of our emissions because we will always need that oil. Does the hon. Lady think that should be part of the plan as well?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We need the environmental impact assessment from the Department so that we can assess the carbon footprint of road building, and look at whether more sustainable materials can be used and whether the extent of the road building programme proposed by the Government is compatible with reaching net zero, or whether other decisions need to be made.

We desperately need a comprehensive strategy to guide the Government’s approach. We do not want to see in this plan only platitudes and declarations of intent; we need clarity about how the Government intend to boost zero emission vehicle sales, speed up the transition to sustainable fuels, including for aviation and maritime, and encourage more people to use public transport, which we must ensure involves clean, greener vehicles.

We need a bold vision, linked to planning, housing and economic policy, on what role transport will play in the future, with post-pandemic adjustments to the way we live, move around, buy goods and access services—for example, the idea of the 15-minute city, which has been championed in Paris, and the role of the logistics sector. Many more people have resorted to online deliveries during the pandemic. I believe that pattern of behaviour will continue, so what is the strategy to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of urban centres wherever possible and rely on more sustainable forms of transport, whether electric vans, e-cargo bikes or other alternatives? The other day I visited Magway, a company that is looking at an underground delivery system, which it will be trialling in west London soon; that is really quite exciting stuff. Will we see ambition on that sort of thing in the plan?

I would welcome any insight from the Minister as to what concrete measures we can expect to see. Are the Government considering a zero emission vehicle mandate, as recommended by the Green Alliance and Policy Exchange, to ease the transition to 100% new zero emission vehicle sales by 2030? Are they considering a sustainable aviation fuel blending mandate to incentivise production and the adoption of stable fuels derived from waste? Will we finally see the timeframe for the production and roll-out of the 4,000 zero emission buses promised by the Government? How does the Government’s consultation on cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights square with all of this?

There is huge potential for jobs, and for the UK to lead the way in technological development. What we really want to hear from the Minister is a real strategy to get us there.