Human-specific Medical Research Techniques

Debate between Martyn Day and Charles Walker

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

You are putting in some shift today, Sir Charles, if I may say so.

I am grateful to be here, and very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing today’s debate, which is on an issue close to my heart. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, and although I have spoken at some length on this issue before, today I will make just three points.

First, what drew me to supporting human-relevant science was the need to safeguard and protect animals. Home Office statistics show that 3 million testing procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2021. Also, the UK is the top user of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe; thousands of experiments are conducted every year on these sentient animals. Many people will have seen The Mirror’s film showing horrific gavage, or force-feeding; UK-bred, factory-farmed animals are force-fed chemicals directly into their stomachs without any pain relief, day in and day out. Of course, other poor creatures have been bred to be bled. All this animal suffering is quite unnecessary.

Then we have the staggering waste of animal lives. Millions of non-genetically altered animals are being bred for scientific procedures; they are killed without even being used in procedures; 1.8 million animals were killed in this way in 2017. I have previously called for laboratory animals to be included in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and I reiterate those calls today.

The stark reality is that animal experimentation is not a good enough predictor of what will happen in humans. For example, animal experimentation delayed the introduction of penicillin, failed in HIV research, and delayed the development of the polio vaccine by decades. History is littered with examples of human harm and fatalities after the application of animal data to human patients. Indeed, 92% of new medicines fail to pass human trials simply because testing on animals cannot predict human responses. Compare animal testing with, for example, the innovative liver on a chip, which can identify 87% of drugs that risk causing human liver damage, including where those drugs have passed animal tests.

That brings me to my second point, which is that human-relevant techniques work. They are based on human biology. There are also computer models, use of artificial intelligence, organ-on-a-chip technology and advanced use of human cells and tissues. Then we have rapidly developing gene-based medicine, whereby medicine is personalised to a patient’s individual DNA. It would be impossible to replicate that with animal tests. All that work is directly relevant to humans. It speeds up medical progress and gets new medicines and treatments to patients quicker, all without any inhumane treatment of animals. What is not to like?

Animal Free Research UK highlighted an excellent case in its briefing for today’s debate. It relates to diabetes, a major health issue for our nations and a cause of cost pressure to our health services. Scientists at the University of Exeter made a major advance in the treatment and prevention of diabetes by working with human cells. They made important discoveries about the changes that occur in insulin-producing beta cells. This could not have been achieved using animals, due to genetic differences between animals and humans.

My third and final point is that in addition to ending animal suffering and producing more effective and faster solutions for humans, ending animal testing would also be good for our economy. Once we look past the big business of animal research, which obviously has a vested interest in continuing with animal experimentation and blocking progress, we can start to turbocharge our economy and our place as a world leader in life sciences. In Scotland, life sciences contribute £3.4 billion to Scottish gross value added, and it is a growth sector. Given that we also have world-leading universities, and some amazing pharmaceutical companies in which efforts to undertake animal-free research are ongoing, we are really well placed. What we need is legislation to support the transition to human-relevant science. I would support a human-specific technologies Act; that would be an important step.

In conclusion, our laws are simply outdated. The regulatory requirement to test on animals before humans, despite clear and compelling evidence that it is ineffective, is simply not fit for purpose. I also note the letter written by Professor Main from the Animals in Science Committee, which calls on UK Ministers to take the initiative now on non-animal techniques.

I call on the Minister and the UK Government to mandate a rigorous, public, scientific hearing on the issue. We need to be evidence-led. That would reduce the unnecessary harm involved in animal experiments, and ultimately lead to a ban on this immoral practice. We must open up legislative paths that allow us to pursue alternatives, or risk being left behind when other countries steal our lead.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Front Benchers, would anybody else like to make an intervention or a short speech?

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Debate between Martyn Day and Charles Walker

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Charles, for calling me to speak.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing today’s debate and for opening it in the fashion that he did. He has my full support for the bid to return prison officers’ retirement age to 60. Indeed, it has been a very consensual debate throughout, as shown by all Members who have participated.

This is an issue that I have raised a number of times in this Parliament on behalf of my constituents, several of whom are serving prison officers. Having listened to the direct testimony from constituents about having to restrain prisoners and deal with violent incidents that happen daily across the prison network, the situation is clearly becoming more and more difficult for officers, and these physical difficulties can only get harder with age. My own visits to HMP Shotts and HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont have further convinced me that this is indeed the case.

Although I do not have the latest Scottish figures, across England and Wales, 7,612 assaults on prison staff were recorded in the 12 months to June 2021, which equates to an average of 21 assaults every day. That is a worrying number, irrespective of the age of the officers involved. Quite simply, if police officers retire at 60, it is only right that prison officers, who work on the frontline of the Prison Service, are afforded the same right by the society that they protect. In my opinion, the UK Government are letting prison officers down.

In addition to the police, the fire service and all the armed forces retire at 60, and rightly so. Prison officers ought to be able to retire then as well, because they are dealing with very dangerous and violent individuals; we have heard so much testimony on that fact today. They are not like other civil servants; their job is a dangerous one. It is and should be treated as a uniformed emergency service.

For years, the UK Government have said that there are no plans to change the retirement age for prison officers. Stonewalling on this issue does nothing for the brave men and women who are providing crucial public services that we rely on for law and order in our society to function effectively. Indeed, when I raised this issue on 17 December last year by way of a public petition from local constituents, Ministers did not even respond. I think that my constituents in particular, and our nation’s prison officers in general, deserve much better. This simply sends out a message that this Government do not care.

The Government repeatedly hide behind their decision to increase the pension age as reflecting the “generally improving life expectancy”. While it is true that people may be living longer, that does not equate to their physical and mental abilities being able to withstand the daily demands faced by prison officers. Given that lack of respect, it is little wonder that figures from the Ministry of Justice show, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), that more than 86,000 years of prison officer experience has been lost, since 2010, as experienced officers leave, no doubt in part for better working conditions and higher pay.

Budget cuts have seen the Prison Service impose an almost total recruitment freeze in recent years, so recent movement by the Chancellor for pay rises for public workers is very welcome. However, with long hours to fill, significant labour shortages and a volatile situation to police, prison staff are simply becoming burnt out. Prisons were among the employers with the most demand for staff in late October and early November, according to the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, with adverts for prison officers rising by some 30%. In conclusion, I am in little doubt that the pension age issue is a significant factor in that situation. Our prison officers simply deserve better. They should be treated equitably with police officers and allowed to retire at 60. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on this.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Ms Brown, you have six minutes, given the generosity of our SNP spokesman.

Social Care Funding

Debate between Martyn Day and Charles Walker

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing what has been a well attended and thoughtful debate.

The Office for Budget Responsibility assessed the UK’s public finances as potentially £30 billion worse off each year in a no-deal Brexit scenario of medium disruptiveness. That sum is significant because it is more than the entire sum spent on adult social care, plus investment in NHS buildings and equipment, across the United Kingdom in 2017-18. Much of the responsibility for social care is, of course, devolved, with respect to Scotland. The Scottish National party Scottish Government are currently working with a range of partners to take forward a national programme to support local reform of adult social care support. Scotland continues to be the only country in the UK that delivers free personal care. That currently benefits more than 77,000 older and disabled people in Scotland.

In England since 2010 the number of people receiving publicly funded social care has decreased by 600,000, because of funding cuts. In 2019-20 the SNP Scottish Government are increasing their package of investment and social care support and integration to exceed £700 million, up from £550 million in the previous year. In England a boundary has always existed between the NHS and social care, contributing to fragmented and unco-ordinated care. In Scotland the SNP Scottish Government successfully integrated health and social care, which is the most significant change to health and social care since the creation of the NHS in 1948. Last month the First Minister announced that everyone diagnosed with cancer will have a dedicated support worker, provided through a new £18 million partnership fund.

Of course, the devolved Administrations do not operate in isolation. Policy decisions from Westminster continue to have an impact on social care. The independent expert advisory group in Scotland deems that changes set out in the UK Government’s immigration White Paper would reduce net migration to Scotland by between 30% and 50% in the coming two decades. That is extremely significant. It states that social care would be severely affected as fewer than 10% of those in caring personal service occupations in Scotland earn above £25,000, and almost no one earns over the £30,000 immigration threshold. Average earnings of adult social care workers are higher in Scotland than they are elsewhere in the UK, coming in at about £18,400 as opposed to £17,300. Yet people are thinking about a £30,000 immigration limit. Just let those figures sink in. Thanks to Scottish Government funding, staff can be paid at least the real living wage, but it is still nowhere near the immigration threshold. That is a serious worry in respect of future provision throughout the UK, not just Scotland.

The number of Scots over 80 with social care needs is set to increase by 68% by 2036. That is probably an even faster rate than the English figures that we have heard from some hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) called for an independent evaluation of the impact of Brexit on the health and social care sector, through his private Member’s Bill, the European Union Withdrawal (Evaluation of Effects on Health and Social Care Sectors) Bill. The Bill was supported across the House and by 102 organisations, but I wonder whether the UK Government are listening.

On 18 August The Sunday Times, citing UK Government planning assumptions under Yellowhammer, stated:

“An already ‘fragile’ social care system is expected to be tipped over the edge by a no-deal, with providers starting to go bust by the new year”.

The report quoted the document as saying that “smaller providers” would be

“impacted within two-three months and large providers four-six months”

after Brexit. The negative economic impact of a disorderly Brexit, including an increase in inflation and an economic recession, will augment the pressure on providers and will shift the burden of care work on to unpaid family carers, the majority of whom are women. I look forward to hearing the Minister address those points, particularly on the issue of migrant staff and the £30,000 immigration limit.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I want to give Sir Vince Cable two minutes at the end, so if the other Front-Bench colleagues could maintain a 12-minute discipline, or just under, that would be great.

UK Maritime Industry

Debate between Martyn Day and Charles Walker

Thursday 12th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for initiating the debate. I confess that before my election, I had little real knowledge of the modern industry, but I have been steadily learning from my contacts and visits to Forth Ports Grangemouth. I have also attended trips on to ships with the local seafarers mission, which I cannot praise enough for doing such a fantastic job in supporting workers, and I have had talks with and briefings from the RMT and Nautilus, as well as haulage contractors in my area. I am grateful to all those bodies for assisting me during the past 18 months.

Grangemouth is of course Scotland’s largest container port. It is also Scotland’s largest port, with the site covering 386 acres. Grangemouth lies at the centre of Scotland’s industrial heartland. It is situated midway between the main Scottish cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh and is served by the M9 motorway, with links to the national motorway network, and is also well rail-linked.

Approximately 9 million tonnes of cargo are handled through the dock facilities each year. With about 150,000 containers and as much as 30% of Scotland’s GDP going through the port, it is the UK’s largest feeder port and the only one that exports more than it imports. Locally, Forth Ports employs some 200 people within the port and supports a further 1,000 jobs within the port estate. Therefore, the industry’s significance to my constituency cannot be overstated, although it may often be overlooked by those driving past the gates.

Almost no topic can be debated nowadays without some reference to the issues surrounding Brexit, and this debate is no exception. The maritime industry plays a major role in helping to facilitate the wider freedom of trade in goods. Given the volumes and patterns of freight, leaving the EU will have implications for the shipping sector. One specific concern is about UK flag ships losing their right to operate in the domestic trades of those EU member states that maintain flag-based cabotage restrictions. The economists Oxera have said that changes to the costs of trade with the EU are

“likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activity at ports, while the need for new customs checks on imports and exports is likely to cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports.”

Given the nature of the work at Grangemouth, that is a real concern, although any negative impact could clearly be mitigated through European economic area membership or free trade agreements. The industry’s importance to our countries’ ability to trade worldwide and not just with Europe is key, especially with more than 90% of all trade being handled through our ports. Given that we are an island nation, that is not likely to change, but it leads to questions about how it is done and the role of seafarers, without whom that trade just would not be possible.

The role of seafarers is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the maritime industry. Since 2011, the number of UK ratings has declined by 25%, while the number of UK seafarers has decreased by some 13%. That portends a very serious risk of loss of skills and may even threaten the viability of our home-grown industry, unless training and employment rates improve significantly. That skills deficit is set to be compounded further by future retirals of an increasingly ageing workforce. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of the RMT and its SOS 2020 campaign to highlight that threat to the UK seafarers skills base.

While we face that decline in skilled seafarers, there is in fact a global surplus of ratings, with many of the ratings in the international shipping industry coming from cheaper-wage economies. That is compounded by exploitative practices by some operators, which abuse the complexities of the national minimum wage regulations and pay scandalous rates of pay to some seafarers. That has been much commented on today, so I will just add my disappointment that many seafarers are not receiving a fair wage. Confusion and complexity surrounding the NMW needs to be addressed by the Government. In particular, the meaning of the term “ordinarily working in the UK” needs to be made crystal clear. I would welcome hearing from the Minister how that can best be achieved and how the situation whereby there are current cases of two people working on the same ship and doing the same job but being paid different amounts based largely on nationality can be addressed.

My trade union contacts have flagged up with me the following issue, which highlights the point succinctly and demonstrates the international dimension. The Norwegian international flag register is the second register for Norway. It is not allowed to cabotage in Norway and does not pay tax there. I am told that these ships are among the worst offenders. The majority of these ships operating from Aberdeen stay in the UK permanently, with some not having left for more than 10 years. They have on board Norwegian nationals who receive Norwegian rates of pay, but non-Norwegians are employed on what has been described to me as “peanuts”. The fact that such issues can be so clearly identified must mean that solutions are not beyond conception. I look forward to the Minister’s summing-up.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, colleagues, for your conciseness and your co-operation. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) could have had two minutes, but she would prefer to ask the Minister a question. It will obviously be up to the Minister to decide whether to take that intervention, but I know that the hon. Lady would like to ask a question as opposed to making a speech. The Front Benchers will have 11 minutes each, which will allow the mover of the motion to have two minutes at the end.