Animal Experiments

Debate between Angela Smith and Henry Smith

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Sheridan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

There are four main issues that I will raise in this debate on animal experimentation and Government policy: first, reducing the number of animals used in experiments; secondly, the testing of household products on animals; thirdly, section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and fourthly, the implementation of the new EU directive—2010/63—which, of course, took place on 1 January.

The coalition Government’s programme for government was very welcome as it included two specific pledges on the use of animals in experiments, stating:

“We will end the testing of household products on animals and work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.”

The European Commission has recently confirmed that the ban on importing and selling animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU will come into force, as planned, on 11 March. The UK was rightly one of the first countries to adopt this position, and the ban comes into force after more than 40 years of campaigning—principally led, I must say, by the British Union Against Vivisection, and others—and it is, of course, most welcome.

As we pass the mid-point of this Parliament, I hope through this debate to examine the Government’s progress and see how the very worthy commitments that they made in 2010 can be realised in a timely manner.

I turn to the first of the four main points that I will raise: reduction. In their recent mid-term review, the Government said:

“We worked to reduce the use of animals in scientific research through a science-led programme headed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. However, the Government continues to recognise that there remains a strong scientific case for the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research where no practicable alternatives exist.”

As the number of such experiments has risen further, to its highest level since records began, my concern is that the use of the past tense in that sentence could be interpreted to imply that the Government have given up their attempt to reduce numbers. If not—and I sincerely hope that the Government have not given up that attempt—what new steps will be taken and when do the Government expect a visible impact?

The number of animals currently being used in experiments in Great Britain—of course, Northern Ireland has a separate system—is the highest since 1986, when statistics were comprehensively collected for the first time following the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. According to Home Office statistics published in July 2012, in 2011 there were 3,710,621 animals used in 3,792,857 procedures in Great Britain. That represents an increase of 1.9% on the 2010 figures. Procedures were performed on particular species, including 1,459 primates, 11,844 rabbits, 11,514 guinea pigs, 2,865 dogs, and 161,733 birds. Of those experiments, only 13% were directly related to human health. Some of the non-medical experiments included: the use of 3,524 animals to test food additives; the use of 541 animals to test the effects of alcohol; the use of 13,676 animals in experiments examining the effects of pollution; and the use of 22,785 animals in experiments relating to agriculture. More than half the animal experiments in 2011 were carried out on animals that had been genetically altered, and many such animals are killed before they are even used because they do not show the correct characteristics.

The second issue that I will raise is the testing of household products on animals. The Government have recently announced their guide for licence holders on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which takes account of the changes introduced by the new European directive, under which no project licence will be granted for

“work using any animals for testing household products”.

However, the definition of “household products” is unclear. In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said:

“There is no authoritative definition of ‘household product’ in UK or European legislation. For the purposes of the current annual statistical collection, project licence holders are required to report the use of animals to test ‘substances used in the household’. Where there is uncertainty, decisions on whether procedures should be recorded under this heading are taken on a case by case basis. No procedures were reported for this purpose in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 151W.]

The statement that there were no tests of this nature in 2011 leads me to believe that the ban would cover only finished products, rather than also covering ingredients. I believe that would seriously undermine the ban, as the vast majority of testing for household products involves testing ingredients. Indeed, as much was admitted in response to another parliamentary question, which was answered on 28 March 2011 by the then Home Office Minister, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. She said:

“We plan to apply the definition of ‘substances used in the household’ used for reporting purposes in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals published annually. This includes all products that are primarily intended for use in the home, including detergents and other laundry products, household cleaners, air-fresheners, toilet blocks, polishes, paper products such as infant nappies, paints, glues (and removers), other furnishing and DIY products and household pesticides. The prohibition will apply to both finished household products and their ingredients, although in practice mainly the latter are tested.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 80W.]

However, recent Home Office reports have indicated that the actual definition may well be much narrower than that.

I move on to section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, under which it is a criminal offence to divulge any information that a researcher would have liked to be kept secret, regardless of whether there is any personal information involved. In May 2012, in response to the public consultation on transposing European directive 2010/63, the Government said that

“the new Directive focuses on greater transparency in relation to the use of animals in scientific research”.

It was the Government’s view that the requirement is incompatible with section 24 of the 1986 Act as it currently stands. The Government said that they would

“consider the options for reforming Section 24 and publish conclusions separately in due course.”

Indeed, in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach said:

“Our consultation revealed no clear consensus on whether the provisions of Section 24 should be repealed and replaced, and we need to give that further thought.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. GC399.]

I understand that currently there is no date set for any further conclusions or consultations to be published by the Government.

The fourth point that I will raise is the Government’s implementation of the requirements of European directive 2010/63 on 1 January. Most of the UK controls, which are of a higher standard than those in many other EU countries, will remain in place. However, as some features may be slightly different, it will be some time before it is clear how the changes will affect animals. Nevertheless, there are some ongoing concerns.

In transposing the new European directive into UK law, while existing UK standards are retained where they are higher than those set out in the directive, a key concern is how the legislation will be interpreted in practice. The draft guidance, which has now been released for consultation, needs to be unequivocal, to ensure that UK standards are retained.

The revised legislation includes a move to transfer more responsibility for its implementation from central to local control at individual establishment level. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes that the Home Office must have a robust programme in place to ensure good practice, to identify shortcomings within establishments and, where needed, to have proper sanctions. It will also be important for establishments to maintain a strong and effective local animal welfare and ethical review body, so that each establishment can ensure compliance with the law and with good practice. The new body replaces the local ethical review process, which progressed well over its 12 years and had widespread support. Indeed, the RSPCA has developed guidelines on best practice for the ethical review process, which should form the basis of the new body’s roles.

The Home Office has chosen to retain the personal licence system, but the content of the proposed new licence has been considerably reduced and now, I fear, contains inadequate detail. The proposed new licence removes much of the detail from the previous licence, and places greater emphasis on an individual’s training and competency record. Potential licensees will have to specify only the broad categories of animals and experimental techniques they want to use, whereas the previous licence required a detailed list of techniques, along with details of the species and the stage of development of the animals to be used. The information will now be held in a training and competency record within the establishment, which could lead to inconsistencies.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Is it not also important to ensure that staff are not asked to undertake duties that they are not competent in or trained to perform, because of the risk of unnecessary cruelty to animals?

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Angela Smith and Henry Smith

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Health is undoubtedly one of the most important areas of public policy, and one that the British people care about deeply. We on the Opposition Benches are very proud of our record on the NHS. It was Labour who created the NHS in 1947, and Labour who saved it from Tory destruction in 1997. Under the Labour Government there was significant real growth in the resources going into health care. NHS expenditure increased by more than two thirds over 13 years, with real-terms growth averaging around 5.5% per annum. Those high rates of investment led to improvements in hospital waiting times, life expectancy and health outcomes.

It is all too easy to forget what the NHS was like under the previous Tory Government. People waited for years for treatment such as hip replacements, and it was common for patients to spend hours in the cold corridors of old hospitals built in the 19th century while waiting for beds to become available. We changed that by building new hospitals and employing more doctors and nurses.

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will give way once and no more, because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak.

[Henry Smith]

I am interested to hear the tale of life in the NHS before the Labour Government and now, because under Labour my constituents lost hospital provision, including accident and emergency and maternity services. That was the Labour experience in Crawley.

[Angela Smith]

All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I worked in the NHS as one of the so-called bureaucrats in the Tory ’80s, and I remember having a patient crying to me over the phone, begging me to admit him so that he could have his eye taken out, because the Tory NHS was not providing the beds or the theatre space for such operations. We changed that by investing in the NHS so that life chances for many people could be improved. There is no doubt that there are people alive today who would not be so had that investment not been made.

Before the election, the Tories promised to protect the NHS with real-terms increases in spending. Let us get one thing straight: the 0.1% per annum increase that the coalition Government said they would provide does not equate to real increases in spending, because since then inflation rates have gone through the roof. There is no real-terms increase in spending, so one has to ask why the Government want to divert a further £2 billion from tight budgets into a top-down, ideologically driven reorganisation, especially when the coalition agreement specifically stated that the Government would not do that.

Furthermore, it is a reorganisation that no one wants—and that includes the Lib Dems, as we saw with last week’s vote in the great city of Sheffield. Just this week the BMA voted against the proposals, and many other health professionals think that they are dangerous and ill thought through. Without the support of anybody, it seems, the Government are intent on forcing through

“the biggest…upheaval in the health service, probably since its inception.”

Those are not my words but the words of Chris Ham, the chief executive of the King’s Fund.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the Secretary of State’s view that competition and free markets will drive innovation in the NHS, and that profit will motivate performance. I do agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston Upon Hull (East) (Karl Turner), when he says that the introduction of these reforms risks removing the N from NHS. No longer will we have a national service; instead, the system will be fragmented and the postcode lottery of service will become more and more prevalent.

The notion of “any willing provider” means that many NHS hospitals will be at a disadvantage compared with private providers, which will not have to provide a comprehensive service for complex problems. “Fine,” some might say, “if that brings costs down”—but what happens when hospitals and other treatment centres become insolvent and have to close down, leaving many areas of the country without adequate health care provision? Handing over £80 billion to GPs to commission services not only risks the important relationship between patient and doctor; it is extremely risky in itself, because of the lack of accountability.

If the plans are passed unaltered, GPs, through the quality premium bonus, will have a financial incentive to keep costs down and not to refer patients for diagnostic tests or treatment. As we found the last time the Tories tried to undertake such a scheme, they could also become unwilling to take on costly patients with chronic conditions. Those who need the most help could find it more and more difficult to get the treatment that they require.

Of deeper concern is the opaque nature of the consortiums. They will have to produce annual financial reports only for the national commissioning board, and they will not have to publish them. At the same time, every council in the country will have to publish every invoice over £500.

These health reforms have no mandate with the British people. They were in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, and even if NHS funding were not being cut, they would still run the clear risk of destabilising the service, because they hand over £80 billion of taxpayers’ money to private institutions, with insufficient safeguards in terms of accountability. The reforms are simply wrong. To allow any willing provider to deliver services risks the destruction of the NHS and a return to the dark days of the 1930s, when we had a two-tier system, with the state providing a minimum service and those who could afford to going private. That, too, would be plainly wrong, and something that the British people have consistently said they would not want.

It was pleasing to see the Lib Dem grass-roots vote against the policy last week, so I say to Lib Dem Members, “The ball is in your court. You can be on the right side of this argument, and your party can be on the right side of the British people, if you go through the Lobby tonight with us. The choice is yours. Flex your muscles and demonstrate that you are prepared to force the Government to revisit their plans by voting with Members on this side of the Chamber tonight.”