Animal Experiments: Medical Research
James Naish Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with everything my hon. Friend said.
It is important to note that only 14% of the UK public feel it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research. With that in mind, banning the use of dogs in medical research could be our first step towards fully phasing out research on animals. We should be encouraged to follow in the footsteps of other countries, such as the USA, which has recently published a road map, with the aim of making animal testing the exception, rather than the norm, for pre-clinical safety toxicity testing over the next three to five years.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the USA committing to a road map. I believe the EU has also done so, and is looking to phase out animal testing entirely through its road map, which is due to be published in 2026. Does she agree that the UK Government could commit to something similar—a road map that gives activists and others confidence in our direction of travel?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We appreciate that the use of animals in medical research stirs the strong emotional instincts of many people across the UK, including many colleagues here. The day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing cannot come soon enough. Sadly, however, that day is not here yet.
Phasing out animal testing has to be done in lockstep with the development of safe, accurate and validated alternatives. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. Consequently, the carefully regulated use of animals remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment. Animal testing continues to be required by international agreements, which all global medicines regulators follow, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Such testing is regulated through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to the animals is limited to the absolute minimum. This is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.
The system also includes a three-tier system of licensing that licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. New technologies including AI, as referred to by colleagues, do offer potentially revolutionary ways to create alternative technologies. That is why our manifesto commits us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. As the first step, we will publish a strategy later this year laying out how the Government will support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, and officials are working on this as we speak. The strategy will set out how we will create a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods wherever possible and that places the UK at the forefront of international efforts to drive this agenda. I am proud to say that the UK is already world-leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise this technology as much as possible.
James Naish
Does the Minister know whether there will be timelines for that strategy? Are there likely to be dates and milestones that we are working towards, or just a generic description of the direction of travel?
Feryal Clark
The road map will set out how we can get to a place where we can phase out animal testing. I cannot set out dates and what the road map will include, but a huge amount of investment is going into many of the projects that have been mentioned—hopefully that will all be included in the road map. As colleagues have said, where other nations are developing new ways to phase out animal testing, we will look into those and see where we can replicate them. We are closely following developments in Europe and the US, and we work closely with both the Food and Drug Administration and our European colleagues on this matter.
Currently, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs through UK Research and Innovation. That is primarily achieved through funding of the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulation on animal testing. Since its launch in 2004, it has committed over £100 million through its research, innovation and early career awards to provide new three Rs approaches for scientists in academia and industry to use.
That is only part of our support. Many UKRI programmes, including research on organoids, cell behaviour and AI, may eventually lead to the development of non-animal testing methods, but they are not categorised as such because they are basic research at the moment. The Government have also provided more than £6 million of funding for seven centres of excellence for regulatory science and innovation to help drive advancement in healthcare. The in-silico CERSI, led by the University of Manchester, aims to support the use of computational techniques to test and develop medical products.
To be clear, we want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can, but for now the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment. I thank hon. Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate. I look forward to us working together going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
James Naish Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
As I have said, and as I will elaborate, the Government and I believe that there is a better way forward to give the creative sectors and creators the protections that they need. It would deliver them the certainties, protections and ability to have transparency and to be renumerated, and provide more possibilities to large creators, or those who represent them, to deliver licences into the future. We need to take the issues in the round, not just one part of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a great time at the Ivor Novello awards. I congratulate everyone who wins, has been nominated or is participating today, especially U2, who are I think receiving an award—other creators who I have seen live many times.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have told me that they feel that their works have already been scraped, and that AI development has already trampled over their rights. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give me that we already recognise that this is a time-limited issue and that action is required?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is true that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and under the current law. Nothing illustrates the need to have a comprehensive think about the way forward than the example that he has just given.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
James Naish Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My new clause 7 would ensure that, alongside the creation of a digital verification framework, there would be a right to use non-digital ID. Digital exclusion is a major challenge for many communities around the country, including in North Norfolk. Part of the answer is to improve digital education and bring those numbers down, but, as Age UK rightly says,
“it will never be possible to get everyone online.”
The progress we make in the digital age must ensure provision for those who will not be supported by it, or that they are not left behind or excluded.
Older people are not the only ones who struggle with digital exclusion—poverty is also a significant driver. A study in 2021 showed that more than half those who are offline earned less than £20,000 a year. The Government told the Lords that if it turned out that people were being excluded, they could consider legislating, but how many people earning less than £20,000 a year will be taking a business through the courts—perhaps as far as the Supreme Court—to secure their rights? Why are we waiting for it to go wrong, placing the onus on vulnerable people to generate test cases and legal precedent when we could put this matter to bed once and for all with this simple addition to the Bill?
I will also speak in support of new clause 1. It has become abundantly clear to us all that we cannot trust the social media giants to keep our children safe. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they have very little interest in keeping children safe. The algorithms that drive these platforms, which are designed to keep users scrolling for as long as possible to maximise ad revenue, can be deeply damaging to children and young people. It is important to emphasise just how pervasive the content stream can be. Not every hon. Member may have experienced it, but pervasive, targeted content is not the same as a child seeing something distressing on the news. Once seen—if only fleetingly—there is the potential for them to be exposed to unsubstantiated, misleading or even traumatic content, or versions of that content, over and over again every few swipes as the algorithm realises it can suck them in, keep them scrolling and make profit for its social media giants. That is not what social networks set out to do, but it is what they have become.
Whatever the social media giants told the Government or the Opposition, whether “It is too complex,” “It would cost too much,” or, “The flux capacitor is not big enough,” that is just rubbish. If we simply removed the right to process personal data for under 16s, we would remove the algorithms’ ability to target them with content based on what they say and do. If the social networks cared about children’s wellbeing, they would have done that already. I hope that today we will finally take the action necessary to protect the next generation.
Overall, my views on the Bill remain broadly similar to the frustrations I expressed months ago on Second Reading. There is important, commendable and sensible stuff in the Bill, and I welcome that, but what is not in the Bill is more frustrating, as it could have put it in a much better position to harness the power of data. We could have addressed the litany of failures in public sector data use that the Government’s own review outlined just months ago. We could be equipping our civil service and public sector with the talent, culture and leadership to make us a global trailblazer in data-driven government. It is really frustrating that the Bill does not contain any of the steps necessary to make those improvements.
If we use data better, we do government better. I am sure that the whole House and all our constituents are keen to see that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As all hon. Members in the Chamber know, data is the DNA of our modern life. It drives our economy, our NHS and our public services, often silently but ultimately powerfully. For too long, outdated data infrastructure across the British state has held us back, costing us billions and draining frontline resources. This ambitious Bill sets out to change that, so it should be welcomed.
For our NHS, the Bill will mean faster and safer care. More transferable and accurate patient data could save 140,000 hours of staff time annually, reduce duplicate lab tests, prevent up to 20 deaths each year from medication errors and improve overall patient safety and outcomes—that is real impact. It will also free up 1.5 million hours of police time, letting officers spend more time on our streets, not behind desks. The national underground asset register, as has been mentioned, could bring £4 billion to our economy by preventing costly infrastructure delays and accidents. The Bill will seek not just to cut red tape, but boost research, protect personal data and allow scientists and online safety experts to better access information to keep us all safer. I welcome that.
On Government amendment 16 on artificial intelligence and the creative industries, we have all seen the potential of AI, but that promise must not come at the expense of those who create. In that regard, I thank the dozens of constituents who have contacted me about their concerns. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the complex intersection between AI and copyright, and the need to get this right. It is clear that we must tread carefully and base any changes on robust evidence. I am therefore pleased that the Government are committed to publishing a full economic impact assessment and reporting to Parliament on key concerns, such as how AI developers access copyrighted materials, the transparency of their methods and licensing. I will also continue to support Equity with its work on the principle of personality rights.
New clause 21 proposes mandatory recording of sex at birth across all public authorities. The new clause would require all public authorities, whether the NHS, which I could potentially understand, or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which I certainly could not, to record and retain people’s sex at birth even when someone has a gender recognition certificate. The new clause would seemingly require that regardless of context, purpose or relevance. That feels neither proportionate nor respectful of existing legal frameworks or the trans community at this difficult time.
It is important that we acknowledge that transgender, non-binary and intersex people already face considerable barriers in public life, and many of my constituents have shared with me in recent weeks just how much fear and uncertainty they are experiencing. Rushed amendments and changes, without dialogue with those impacted, are not in any way welcomed and could have very negative consequences.
Finally, on the theme of privacy, proportionality and protecting vulnerable people, will the Minister say whether any steps will be taken by his Department to end the collection and sharing of sensitive personal data when people use police, public, university or other websites to report crimes or abuses and the subsequent sharing of that data with third parties through tracking pixels? The use of such tools means people inadvertently share information with advertisers. I hope the Government will look into that and take it seriously.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I was glad to add my name to new clauses 1 to 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins).
I speak to new clause 1 on the age of data consent. Currently in the UK, the minimum age of digital consent—the age at which children can consent to having their data processed—is 13. The new clause would raise the minimum age for social media data processing to 16, meaning social media companies would not be able to process the data of children for their algorithms. I hope that that would allow children to enjoy many of the educational benefits and relevant services that social media can offer, as well as continuing to enjoy the freedoms of engaging with friends but without the risks of addictive algorithmic content.
The mental health issues associated with social media use in young people, particularly children, should be treated as a public health crisis. The Government are missing a vital opportunity with this legislation to reform how social media is used by not including provisions around children’s online safety. The Bill offers an important opportunity to start the process of removing harmful social media mechanisms and, as such, I urge the Minister to support the new clause.
New clauses 2 to 6 would ensure transparency in how AI systems are trained and give rights holders more control over the use of their works. Concerns about the impact of AI on the creative industries have been raised hundreds of times by my constituents and I have been raising those concerns in Parliament for years. In my Westminster Hall debate back in February 2023 on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights, I raised my concerns about the bypassing of copyright laws in relation to AI and intellectual property with the former Conservative Government. However, the former Minister blamed the lack of the former Government’s action to introduce regulation for creatives, associated with the rise of AI, on the political turmoil in the Tory leadership at that time, and their neglectful attitude towards leadership was mirrored in their attitude towards introducing protection for creatives in this space.
Their conclusion from my Westminster Hall debate was
“not to legislate in periods of political turmoil”—[Official Report, 1 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 163WH.]
and the need for “more deep consultation”, which did not materialise. I think we can all be glad that the chaos of that Government is in the past. However, we are yet to see the introduction of thorough and robust copyright laws relating to artificial intelligence, which is fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. I hope this Government will act upon that today by accepting the new clauses.
I wish to reiterate the importance of these new clauses in ensuring that AI models are bound by existing copyright law, increasing data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, and empowering creators to take legal action against developers who fail to comply. The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. However, a solid regulatory framework, which could be created with the addition of these amendments, is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work. My colleagues and I believe that existing copyright law should be enforced to protect the UK’s creative industries, which are a world-leading British export.
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
James Naish Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks 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
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute.
A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs.
Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses.
Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs.
The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding
“represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.”
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On that point, the previous Government committed to doubling investment in this area. Would my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the current Government matching that, if not improving on it?
Listed Places of Worship Scheme
James Naish Excerpts(5 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
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western, and I thank the Minister—a trained Anglican priest who, I am sure, has our best interests at heart—for tolerating the lamentations of we lay people.
I start by thanking the dozen or so constituents who have written to me about the listed places of worship grant scheme, especially Mark Goodwill-Hodgson, John Edwards, Derek Hollis, Conrad Oatey and Tony Cox, who all shared deeply personal testimonies with me about the importance of their local places of worship in my constituency of Rushcliffe.
What is unique about the listed places of worship grant scheme is its accessibility, paying out approximately 500 grants a month at an average of £4,000 each. We should all be proud of the wider impact that this has had over the last 20 years, and I know that my constituency of Rushcliffe alone has many churches that have benefited from the scheme during that time. You have asked me to be brief, Mr Western, so I simply commend this scheme to all Members. I look forward to the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, as well as the statement later today, which I hope will provide greater clarity and certainty for listed places of worship about their futures under this Government.
Project Gigabit
James Naish Excerpts(7 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
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. One of the very first pieces of casework I received after the general election was from a constituent living in a village called Tollerton, who wanted access to full-fibre for domestic and commercial purposes. He told me that he had been contacting Openreach on and off for two years, trying to find out when the upgrade would start, and that the proposed connection date had moved four times. He consequently described the roll-out of full-fibre as “shockingly slow”. You will not be surprised, Mr Dowd, to hear that he lived in one of the 6 million hard-to-reach properties classified as area 3 by Ofcom. I encourage the Minister to think about how to best accelerate work to connect hard-to-reach properties as a priority to ensure that we meet our nationwide 2030 target.
Thankfully, I have been able to confirm that Openreach has a customised installation plan for Tollerton that will sit outside the core commercial build programme. My constituent described that confirmation as “amazing news”, and work should start early in the new year. None the less, the volume of communication I receive about full-fibre tells me that residents are frustrated about perceived delays. I would therefore be interested to hear more from the Minister about steps being taken to remove barriers to roll-out, including flexible permitting and sharing infrastructure where possible.
I acknowledge the work of the previous Government in starting the roll-out of full-fibre, which is of national importance. However, as our manifesto clearly says,
“the rollout of gigabit broadband has been slow.”
I therefore welcome the new Government’s commitment to
“make a renewed push to fulfil the ambition of full gigabit and national 5G coverage by 2030.”
Full-fibre uptake to date in my constituency of Rushcliffe is very high, at 55%, which is above the national average. With a growing tech industry, significant house building and many people continuing to work from home, I believe demand will only grow further. But for parts of rural Britain, that is likely to require early investment in wireless and satellite provision for places where it may prove prohibitively expensive to provide a full-fibre connection. I would therefore welcome hearing more from my hon. Friend the Minister about his planned approaches for this.