Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Written evidence submitted by Cruelty Free International (REULB75)

Submission to the call for written evidence: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Summary

The use of animals in research, testing and education is regulated by a number of pieces of retained EU law (REUL), covering the breeding, care and use of animals for scientific purposes, the transport of animals, the use of animals to test chemicals, biocides, plant protection products and novel foods, and the prohibition of the use of animals to develop or test cosmetic products as well as on the marketing and import of cosmetic products that have been newly tested on animals elsewhere in the world.

Cruelty Free International is a campaigning NGO headquartered in the UK with over 100 years' experience as an authority on animal testing issues. We have three main areas of concern with the Bill. Firstly, that the removal of any one of these regulations could have unintended consequences, not least resulting from the loss of positive elements within these regulations which aim to protect animals and set boundaries on their use in research and testing. Secondly, that the limited time available for reviewing REUL before the sunset encourages poor law-making, increases the chances of things being missed and amplifies the risk of unintended consequences. Thirdly, that there is no indication that this Bill will deliver on the Government’s claim that leaving the European Union would be an opportunity to improve protection for animals, including the over three million who continue to suffer each year in laboratories in the UK, and indeed that any dismantling of the foundation for UK standards runs the risk of a race to the bottom.

Cruelty Free International’s view:

1. Unintended consequences: REUL will be lost if they are not restated or replaced before the end of the sunset period in December 2023 even if there is general consensus that they fulfil a valuable function and are proportionate.

2. Whilst the Environment Act 2021 protects the principles contained in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) of animal testing as a last resort and the promotion of non-animal methods, the regulation contains significant amounts of detail on the use of animals and provisions which create opportunities for alternatives to animal testing. For example, Article 13, which is not a protected provision in the Environment Act 2021, permits ‘adaption’ of information requirements allowing testing to meet requirements in ways other than specified animal tests. Additionally, Article 13 provides a mechanism for review of test methods with a view to reducing the use of animals.

3. Article 117 of the same regulation provides a mechanism, in accordance with the objective of promoting non-animal methods, for the relevant agency to provide regular reporting on the status of implementation and use of non-animal test methods.

4. REUL also includes legislation governing biocides and plant protection products and how and when animal testing can be used which states that animal testing should only be used as a last resort.

5. Although amended by The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products is, we understand, retained direct EU legislation and would therefore fall within the scope of the sunset clause. This regulation enshrines the ban on animal testing for cosmetics.

6. In general, this body of REUL covers an area of law which is important to the UK’s national perception of itself as a leader in both animal welfare and science, as well as to public opinion. The removal of any of these REUL without adequate replacement, whether by design or inaction, could have negative unintended consequences which would harm our standing as a leader in these areas. It would also fly in the face of strong public concern. For example, 85% of people are against testing cosmetics and their ingredients on animals [1] and 75% agree that more work needs to be done into alternatives to using animals in research [2] .

7. A rushed process may result in mistakes and omissions: Under this Bill there are at least 2,400 separate pieces of legislation which are in scope to be restated, reformed, or revoked. Recent reporting suggests that there could be a further 1,400 that the Government were not originally aware of. [3] The scale of the task posed by filtering through 3,800 pieces of REUL before the end of the sunset period in 2023, as set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, is clearly not feasible. Parliament would be required to consider more than nine pieces of legislation every day. Clause 2 provides for an extension to the sunset provision until the end of 2026 but even under this extended timeline the requirement would be more than two a day.

8. In this context, Cruelty Free International has several concerns about the standard of practice that will be applied to this process. We fear that elements of the process may be rushed, raising the risk of poor law-making and mistakes leading to redrafting which will also compound concerns with the timeline.

9. In general, we are concerned that REUL will be deleted unintentionally, either because of a lack of awareness of it or because it will not be reviewed before the end of the sunset in either 2023 or 2026. This outcome could drastically amplify the risk of unintended consequences resulting from this Bill.

10. We worry that that elements of REUL which protect animals and encourage the regulatory use of non-animal methods will be crowded out from the filtering and review process, increasing the chances that they will either be deleted by default or that they will not be given proper scrutiny and care in the review process.

11. We also have concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the process for sifting and reviewing REUL. It is not clear from the drafting of the Bill how the Government intends to manage the process of sifting and reviewing and whether it will apply any guiding principles. Clarity in this area will provide reassurance where currently there is a vacuum of information.

12. Risk of undermining opportunities of withdrawal from the EU and starting a race to the bottom: A key rationale for this legislation is to unlock the benefits of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Within the context of laws relating to the use of animals in research and testing and accelerating the transition to animal-free science, there is significant scope for improvement. We can and should use our freedom to diverge from EU regulations as a springboard to step up efforts to end animal experiments and become a world leader in the development of humane and human-relevant science.

13. However, we need a foundation from which to build, and this Bill threatens to remove the regulatory floor on which our current standards are rested. If the threats set out above are realised and pieces of REUL relevant to the use of animals in science are lost irrevocably from the UK statute book, animals, by definition, will benefit from less protection.

14. We are also concerned about the impact that Clause 15(5) of the Bill will have on the direction of travel for standards in the UK. We believe that the effect of Clause 15(5), which prohibits the introduction of provisions that ‘increase the regulatory burden’, can only result in a race to the bottom. This approach mistakenly defines regulation as a cost without benefit, failing to recognise the need to make a fair and balanced calculation of public benefit.

15. The current drafting provides a list of example burdens under Clause 15(10), but it is non-exhaustive and left to the discretion of the minister to decide if the overall effect of changes made under the Bill do in fact increase the regulatory burden. This is vague and open to interpretation in a way that creates additional uncertainty about the future of REUL.

16. It is hard to see how greater protections for animals in laboratories or new incentives to encourage the development and uptake of non-animal methods would not be defined as a ‘burden’ under the Bill as it is currently drafted. In our view this cuts off the prospect of improving standards in the UK and threatens the safety of the elements of REUL which deliver protections for animals used in science and promote the adoption of non-animal methods. In this way, the Bill undermines our ability to take advantage of EU withdrawal in this area of the law and is therefore contrary to a key rationale for the introduction of this Bill.

November 2022