Animal Testing

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, for which Animal Free Research provides the secretariat. I am a long-time campaigner in this area, as well as on many other topics relating to animal welfare. It is important to me and many others that animals are replaced in research as soon as possible.

The petition, created by Maria Iriart from Camp Beagle, is titled: “End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use”. It reads:

“Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans. Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval.

In 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.”

The petition has attracted almost 121,000 signatures—that is a great achievement, and it is good to see Maria in the Gallery today—of which 121 are from my constituency.

I know that people care deeply about this topic and I have received many emails from constituents, as well as from members of the public living in other constituencies. In the past week, many of them have referenced the exposés in The Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror, which showed incredibly disturbing footage of what is going on in UK laboratories. In particular, there were shocking images of long-tailed macaques being force-fed new weight-loss drugs and suffering from extreme distress. It is horrible to think about the pain and torture that innocent animals have to be put through so that humans can be helped to lose weight. It is important to note that those images being circulated are from laboratory sites that are regulated and operating within the law. There are more experiments that I would like to talk about in greater detail, such as testing of anti-inflammation drugs on beagles and of skin treatments on pigs. However, the content is so distressing that I feel it is too disturbing to share during the debate.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

We are a nation of animal lovers—my very first Westminster Hall debate was on animal welfare—although, as a constituent pointed out to me, if we love animals so much, we should not need an animal welfare strategy. I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the move towards ending testing on animals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that beagles are used because they are placid is utterly heartbreaking, and that any move to expedite the end of animal testing would be welcomed by many of our constituents?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. It is important that this issue is dealt with sooner rather than later, and I will say more about that later.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and making her points very clearly. Like many Members, I have had hundreds of emails encouraging me to take part in the debate, and there is particular concern about the use of dogs. Does she support the calls for Herbie’s law, to stop animal testing by 2035?

[Irene Campbell]

I absolutely support Herbie’s law and, as I mentioned, the APPG is supported by Animal Free Research, which hopes to implement it. I agree 100% with the hon. Member.

Another extremely cruel test is the forced swim test, for which there are still three licences granted in the UK, lasting until 2028. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy states specifically:

“The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders. Animal behaviour in the FST also lacks information on treatment latency and varies across strains and protocols. Therefore, we would expect the Home Office Regulator’s default position to be that the FST does not pass the harm-benefit test required under”

the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. To me and many others, it would make complete sense to cancel those licences immediately.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I commend the petition’s signatories for bringing this debate to us. I also commend my hon. Friend, with whom I have been in many debates over the past two years, for all her hard work and advocacy in this area. Does she agree that, although the Government’s strategy to phase out the use of animals in medical research is a very good thing, it is just a step in the right direction on the journey to phasing out the use of animals in medical experimentation completely? Will she also join me in encouraging Members to take forward Herbie’s law as a private Member’s Bill in the new Session, as I have done over the past two years?

[Irene Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I absolutely support the implementation of Herbie’s law sooner rather than later. I welcome the strategy, and I will say more about it later.

A year ago tomorrow, I led a debate on a very similar petition entitled “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, which was also created by Maria Iriart. It is clear to me and many others that neither the public nor parliamentarians are letting this issue go.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The whole Petitions Committee, including me, is grateful to the hon. Lady, who is making a very good speech. Although we all care about this matter hugely, I have found from the emails I have received that the younger generation is increasingly unwilling to tolerate this testing at all. I welcome that and find it fascinating, and I see it as a very good shift in society. Does she agree?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree. I think it is really important that younger people take this cause forward. Earlier today, when I went out to speak to representatives from Camp Beagle, I met a young woman—she is 10—who is really keen that we get it moved forward. I thought that was great.

In the petition debate last year and in others since, I have referenced a 1927 debate on the Dogs Protection Bill, in which the surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby was quoted as saying:

“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]

It is really sad that nearly 100 years later, dogs continue to be used in this cruel and outdated way.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a huge issue in my constituency. Does she agree that, given the grave ethical concern that animals used in testing endure immense pain, distress and confinement, and the fact that the scientific validity of such testing is increasingly in doubt, it is time that we prioritised human alternatives and invested in advanced technology to replace animal testing?

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I agree with everything that he said. I will say a bit more about that later on.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for her passionate speech. My constituents are proud of the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare standards, but they struggle to square that with the continued scale of animal testing and the lack of pace of change—as she highlighted, it has been slow for nearly 100 years now. Does she agree that the real question is not whether we can move away from animal testing, but how quickly we are prepared to do so?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with everything the hon. Member said. I will go on to say more about that.

The petition refers specifically to dogs, as well as other animals that are used in testing. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures in British laboratories used animals—every minute of every day, five animals are used in research in the United Kingdom—over 16,000 experiments were carried out on specially protected species, including cats, dogs, horses and monkeys, and 1,651 dogs were used in experiments.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The hon. Member is being very generous with her time. Dogs have noticeable physiological differences from humans—different enzymes, different gastric pH—which leads to the vast majority of drugs that are tested on them failing to translate to humans. Does she agree, therefore, that the Government should commit to ending the use of dogs, specifically, in testing for human use and provide greater funding for alternatives that are coming through, such as organs on chips?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. Member said. I will speak more about organ on a chip and the need to move more quickly towards phasing out animals in research, but there is an opportunity to phase out dogs almost immediately.

It is important to note that figures released in the Home Office annual reports cover only animals protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that individual animals can be used many times in different tests. However, the statistics count only the first time an animal is used in an experiment. The real number of experiments every year is likely much higher, as that data is not captured.

UK law, in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, already recognises what we all know: that animals have emotions and feelings. The suffering caused to animals subjected to testing is a clear ethical problem, and the effectiveness of the experiments also calls into question the need for the obvious suffering, torture and painful death that many of them endure. Over 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials after passing animal trials, and the failure rate increases to 99.6% for Alzheimer’s disease drugs. To quote Animal Free Research UK:

“Animals like monkeys don’t naturally develop Alzheimer’s, or live long enough to study ageing in the same way that humans experience it, so these outdated methods are simply not giving us the answers we need.”

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her great speech and her great work in this area, and I thank all the residents of my constituency who have signed the petition. I was pleased by the Government’s announcement of a long-term road map to reduce and phase out animal testing in scientific research, with key milestones for the abolition of specific tests, as my hon. Friend said, including an end to skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing on animals this year. Does she agree that we should speed up the timetable as much as possible so that we can end animal testing at the earliest opportunity?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I will say more about that.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. A conflict is sometimes presented between our understandable concerns about animal welfare and good science, but, as she set out, there is no such conflict. The really heartbreaking, frustrating thing is that many of the ongoing experiments that cause animals to suffer are far less rigorous than some of the alternatives that we already know work better but are not yet regulated in the same way. Does she agree that the Government’s road map fires the starting gun to make sure we have regulated alternatives in place as quickly as possible? Will she join me in urging the Government to move as quickly as possible so we can get better, more robust science and protect animals? It is an “and”, not an “or” or an “either”.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. I will speak about some of this later on, but I have on occasion met the relevant Minister and we are due to have a meeting soon. At one meeting, I asked specifically that we remove dogs immediately from medical testing. I was very disappointed by the answer, but we need to keep up the momentum on these serious issues.

There are alternatives to animal research—known as new approach methodologies, or NAMs—that are constantly being researched and developed. For example, any Members here who attended last year’s Lush Cosmetics event would have seen their soaps depicting organ-on-a-chip technology; they are plastic chips that can mimic human organ and tissues for experimentation.

AI is another great and exciting opportunity for replacing animal testing. A software called AnimalGAN, developed by the US Food and Drug Administration, aims to accurately determine how rats would react to chemicals without the need to do new rat tests.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On cosmetics, does she share my concern about the continued use of botox in the non-surgical aesthetic treatment industry? Botox occupies an unusual, but perhaps not unique position in the market: because it is used for medical purposes, it falls under the medical definition and animal testing is allowed. However, it is increasingly being used in the cosmetics sphere—a loophole that needs to be addressed. For the record, I am wholly opposed to animal testing in all its forms; I believe it should be phased out across the board to the maximum extent possible.

[Irene Campbell]

The hon. Member raises an important point; that is not an area that I had considered before, but I absolutely agree. Any of us in this Chamber could go on an afternoon course and tomorrow be injecting people with botox, so his point is valid.

Virtual Second Species has created an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historical dog tests. From an economics perspective, it is worth thinking about how much we could save by transitioning from animals to AI. What is the price of our not moving to a more contemporary scientific method, which would be not only kinder, but smarter? Recent research and analysis, commissioned by Lush Cosmetics and undertaken by the Common Sense Policy Group and Northumbria University, shows how much growth potential the sector has. Between 2021 and 2024, the UK’s non-animal methods sector grew rapidly, with turnover rising to more than £1.2 billion and employment increasing year on year.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time; she is leading the debate excellently. Like many Members, I have been contacted by constituents raising this issue. On Friday, Karen, one of my constituents, talked to me at my coffee morning specifically about the issue of new approach methodologies and their potential to unlock a much more humane approach to testing medicines.

My hon. Friend rightly raises AI’s potential to model biological processes. Does she agree that, as the UK is a leader in both the life sciences and AI, with focus, joint Government working and funding we should be able to lead the way in new AI modelling to replace animal testing? That could potentially be a growth story for the country and something we could export internationally to address this issue and finally put an end to animal testing.

[Irene Campbell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the potential to lead the way in this field; that is something we should definitely be striving towards. Through my role as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I have met many scientists working in the animal-free research area, including at XCellR8, the UK’s leading animal-free testing laboratory. There is an untapped market in this area that is ready to grow, and we must invest in it. With the right Government support, the sector could more than double in size by 2030, creating high-skilled jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in producing the next generation of scientists.

Licences for animal tests are granted in advance and in bulk. Surely the whole licensing system should be reviewed. Many laboratories do only the minimum checks and balances laid out in law, despite how they might talk about meeting the highest standards. When experiments are poorly designed or mistakes are made during the process, it is a waste of life and unnecessary suffering. There are many examples of that, which I am sure will be discussed today.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this field. She, like me, is a serious animal lover who has always stood up for animals. Many constituents have contacted me about this debate; their primary reason for doing so is the unnecessary suffering caused to animals in testing, with force-feeding and injections right up to the end of their lives. Does she agree that new technologies offer a way to achieve the goal that people want to see, which is more research, while also avoiding the unnecessary suffering that causes such concern to our constituents?

[Irene Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with every point that has been raised.

On a positive note, it is most welcome that this Labour Government have published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy—something that we have never seen from previous Governments. The strategy brings a lot of good news, such as £75 million-worth of funding for the new UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. It also refers to using validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030, and to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetics studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. However, I am unsure how that will be validated, as the number of non-human primates and dogs used for those studies is unknown in the first instance. That creates a statistical challenge, and I would challenge whether those statistics are correct.

While it is good news to have a road map, we are not there yet. We need to ensure that the strategy is implemented with robust timelines and a clear road map, so that we can achieve our manifesto commitment of finally phasing out cruel animal testing. On 20 April this year, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it had achieved key first-year goals in implementing its April 2025 road map to reducing animal testing in preclinical safety studies, which includes qualifying the first AI-based drug development tool and working to reduce or eliminate animal testing of drugs, having demonstrated safety through their use in humans in other countries.

It is key that the UK continues to be a world leader in animal welfare and to build on our successes such as the new strategy. However, we cannot fall behind other countries such as the US; we should seize this exciting opportunity to utilise groundbreaking new science while saying goodbye to dated and cruel testing. I look forward to the Minister’s response today, and to hearing from other Members.

16:49

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my role as an officer on the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research.

The phasing out of animal testing was an eye-catching pledge in the Government’s last manifesto. Although it has been slow in coming, the strategy, published late last year, is the first milestone towards delivering on that intent. It was a year ago that we last discussed animal testing in Parliament. As the Member of Parliament with, sadly, the most animal testing infrastructure, I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving their pledge. In my Huntingdon constituency, there are two sites that are directly involved in pre-clinical animal testing: Labcorp and MBR Acres.

I visited Labcorp shortly after being elected as the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. Notably, the issue of animal testing and the prevalence of the sites was never raised during the election campaign, nor during any hustings by any of the candidates; it is almost as if it is not a topic that people are keen to discuss. Following the election, I visited LabCorp to ensure that I understood the nature of the work done there and the challenges of delivering pre-clinical testing for the pharmaceutical industry. I was public about the visit and clearly communicated the experience; I stated that I do not support animal testing but, in order to understand it, I had to meet those who undertake it.

I am sure that many of those participating in the debate today or in the Public Gallery will have seen the footage reported in The Mail on Sunday a week ago. I have seen the puppies and macaques in their cages; although they are well looked after, there is an obvious, inevitable outcome, and it is very difficult to watch them—particularly the macaques, with their recognisable human mannerisms, watching Disney cartoons to keep them occupied, coming to the window to have a look at me looking at them—knowing that all those animals will be tested on and will lose their lives. That is the price we currently have to pay the pharmaceutical industry to save life or extend life. Much as we do not like to know where our food comes from, the same could be said for our medicinal drugs. For all the progress made, animal testing is still a key part of the pre-clinical testing process. Although that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon the Government to deliver their pledge as quickly as they can.

In December, we saw the Government introduce the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, specifically to curtail protest activity at key national infrastructure sites around the life sciences sector. In Committee, the Minister for Policing and Crime said:

“The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.]

It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it.

It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense. Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified?

With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit

“identified no critical or major findings, and no low level concerns”,

identifying only three minor findings involving

“a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”.

Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally.

During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months?

Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy. As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions.

Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement? In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities?

Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform. I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included?

Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?

The Government have also confirmed that the first ministerial board has been convened to oversee delivery of the governance arrangements for the overall strategy. Can the Minister confirm the frequency of those meetings?

Is the investment of £75 million to accelerate the development and adoption of alternative methods separate from, or in addition to, the funding supplied for the three Rs? Is the £20 million of increased funding launched through the pre-clinical translational models hub funding call last month part of that £75 million or in addition to it? Is the £30 million allocated to support the establishment and delivery of the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods also in addition to that?

Further to that, reporting on the portfolio of investments in alternative methods is planned to commence this year. Is the Minister able to confirm when that will be published? We are already in quarter 2. The next meeting of the alternative methods strategy delivery group is scheduled for tomorrow; can the Minister share the outcome of the first meeting in February, and what is likely to be discussed in tomorrow’s meeting?

The Animals in Science Committee has now published its report, “Strengthening leading practice in the animals in science sector”. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made thus far, or he anticipates being made this year, on the 11 recommendations on strengthening leading practice or further work, particularly regarding the Animals in Science Regulation Unit? On recommendation 11, which applies to the Minister’s Department, what steps have DSIT Ministers taken to consider how funding schemes can support the implementation of leading practice across the whole framework?

I appreciate that I have addressed some very specific points, so I would welcome the Minister writing to me to address my questions if he is unable to answer them all today. I am sure his team have been furiously scribbling notes.

As I have stated, I welcome the animal welfare strategy. It is a good first step towards a future in which animals no longer play a part in pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing, but that day is still too far away. A date of 2035 sounds like wishful thinking—an expectation that there will be exponential leaps forward in progress with the advent of AI and the rapid intramonth increases we are seeing in compute power. That may be the case, but hope is not a strategy.

I hope the Government can continue to push in the right direction on this issue, deliver on the pledges outlined in their strategy, and achieve their pledge to phase animals out of testing processes.

17:01

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. She is a real asset to the Petitions Committee. She has led a number of debates on animal welfare issues with great expertise. She is a real champion of animal welfare and is doing great work on the all-party parliamentary group.

An important thing about the APPG is the extent to which it is evidence based. We can all stand here and get emotional about the horrors of animal testing and some of the things we have seen—such as the undercover footage of the dogs and macaques that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned—but when we make the case it is important to be able to present the alternative as well. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has been doing that with great expertise.

I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon for his support for Camp Beagle and the campaign against MBR Acres. He is quite right that some of us voted against the effort to quell protests against the site; it seemed a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It also seems unfortunate that although, to a small extent, we had a debate in Committee, we did not have a debate on the measure on the Floor of the House. I know the Minister is not the Home Office Minister who was responsible for that delegated legislation, but there are still so many questions about what sort of protest will now be possible and to what extent the laws will be used. I hope the Minister has been briefed so that he can answer some of those questions.

Having said that, it is good to see a DSIT Minister here. I have been around almost as long as the lord my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned; it seems like I have been here talking about animal welfare issues for 100 years, but it is only 21. In the past, the split between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has the pure animal welfare brief, and the Home Office, which often responds to debates because it is responsible for licensing, has been difficult.

I remember, just before the general election, a debate in which George Eustice took part. He had been an EFRA Secretary of State and, before that, a Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, and he was one of those who joined me in calling for one Department to hold the issue of animal testing, so that we knew we would always get answers. Particularly in respect of the Home Office, animal testing is quite peripheral to the relevant Minister’s wider brief—I think she covers policing and all sorts of other issues—so it is difficult to get focus. I therefore welcome the fact that the Science Minister, even if he is in the other place and not here today, has responsibility and has brought forward the road map. I hope he is working closely on this with colleagues in DEFRA and the Home Office.

We could spend a lot of time talking about the horrors of animal testing and why we want to see it replaced, but I will also look forward and talk about the positive signals about replacing it that are now being sent. I want, though, to dwell for a moment on the forced swim test, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about. As she said, it is particularly cruel and its use cannot be justified. She quoted the Government’s strategy on replacing animals in science, in which they admitted:

“The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders.”

That was more or less what I was told when I met scientific researchers at the University of Bristol a few years ago. God knows how many times and on how many animals they had carried out that test—it must have been easily in the thousands, if not many more. They said to me, “We have not spotted anything interesting yet, but we’ll probably carry on doing it in case something interesting happens”. That seemed to me a complete exercise in futility, and a casual and callous approach to the purpose of tests.

If tests are being carried out, we want to know that they at least have a point and are essential. I accept that we are not in a position to replace all animal testing tomorrow, but we absolutely ought to be keeping it to a minimum. Scientists doing tests on mice just in case they spot something fascinating seems completely wrong. As far as I know, researchers have now paused such tests, but they have not committed to dropping them altogether and, as we heard, there are still three granted licenses that run until 2028. Although I would like to be able to trust scientists to down tools if they feel that the tests no longer have a purpose, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered revoking those licences? What is the purpose of allowing the licences to continue? Are they ever revoked, or do we always rely on scientists to make the call?

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a sincere and excellent speech, and just made a brilliant point. As we heard earlier, in 2023 some 2.6 million animals were still being tested on, which is a moral atrocity. Does the hon. Member agree that the move away from animal testing should lead to greater investment in testing that will drive better scientific outcomes?

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is important to make the case that this is not just about people being horrified by the cruelty involved. It is also about the fact that the tests have been proven in so many cases not to be effective, not to yield useful results and not to be the best way to make progress in medical discoveries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned a couple of those points.

On the point about conflicts with commercial consideration, the reason why MBR Acres put pressure on the Government and wanted to quell protests is that it is under some pressure: my understanding is that it is struggling to find customers and homes for its beagles because of the protests and the fact that people have quite rightly been horrified that tests are continuing. Where does that commercial pressure sit against the Government’s stated desire to adopt the three Rs, and the measures to reduce the use of animals in experiments set out in the animal welfare strategy and road map? How do we make sure that the Government’s stated intentions prevail over the commercial considerations?

On a more positive note, it is encouraging to see the progress that is being made on NAMs, and the Government throwing their weight behind that with £75 million for the new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. I was particularly interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said about the potential for using AI to help to replace animal testing. She mentioned the AnimalGAN software being developed by the FDA in the US, which could be used to determine how rats would react to chemicals without having to do new tests, and the Virtual Second Species challenge to create an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historic dog tests, which sounds fantastic.

In the strategy on replacing animals in science, the Government committed to setting up a new animal research institute that will

“bring together data, AI, cell engineering, genomic technology and cutting-edge disease modelling capabilities to generate collaborative research at scale”.

As I said, the University of Bristol was involved historically in the forced swim test. It is also at the forefront of AI innovation and research and was, as a result, chosen to host the Isambard-AI supercomputer, one of the fastest computers in the world. A very excited Secretary of State launched it in July last year; if the Minister has not yet had a chance to visit and learn about Isambard, there is an open invitation for him to do so.

We have been told that the supercomputer will spearhead scientific breakthroughs in, among other things, the discovery of new drugs. It could be used to analyse cell data, for advanced medical image modelling, for large-scale biostatistics on human data sets, for medical genetic modelling and for organ-on-a-chip simulations, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. In saying all that, my complete ignorance of these issues probably shines through, but it all sounds like it has huge potential, and there is already a huge amount of interest from researchers who want to use Isambard. I will follow up with the University of Bristol to ask whether anyone has approached it who wants to use it to research NAMs, and if so what priority the university will give to such usage.

There is great potential to use the super-brain in the computer. One reason why there are so many tests is that there is huge duplication and replication of tests, involving a huge number of animals. If we could use AI to number-crunch some of that, we could reduce the numbers in leaps and bounds, so I hope the university will get involved in the new institute. I hope the Minister can say a little more about whether he thinks AI is the way forward to help to bring down the number of animal tests significantly.

17:11

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate and for her ongoing commitment to this issue. I thank the petitioners —including 201 from Taunton and Wellington—for raising it, and other Members for their speeches, which have shown the sincerity on this issue across parties.

The petitioners are right that the current system is failing on welfare, on science and on the pace of change, but it would be wrong to make out that all the science is resolved. Although there are certainly areas where animal testing cannot yet be replaced, we could, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, be doing a lot more. Animal testing should be ended as soon as possible and this debate should spur the Government into doing a lot more.

Our country wrote the world’s first animal welfare law back in 1822. The UK has a long tradition of being ahead on animal welfare, and we should be ahead now. The Government’s strategy, published in November, sets a welcome headline target of a 35% reduction in the number of dogs and primates used in pharmacokinetic studies by 2030, but a 35% reduction five years away is not ambitious enough, and it has not been put on a statutory footing. Like the petitioners, I am concerned that none of the strategy’s targets are in statute. They are ambitions in a policy document with no binding mechanism to ensure they are met. A 35% target for 2030 could become a 25% target in 2032 or 2035. There is nothing in the strategy to prevent that from happening. If we are serious about leading, we should be willing to put our targets into law.

We should also be willing to lead on alternative methods, and to do that we need the alternative methods to be validated. Following Brexit, we lost access to European testing, and it has taken five years to establish a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. The new centre is welcome, but it is five years overdue. We need to be ambitious from day one; naming a new centre will not be enough on its own.

Last year, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit found 146 confirmed cases of non-compliance across 45 establishments, of which 43% related to inadequate care in respect of issues such as food, water or suitable facilities. The regulator is funded by the very establishments that it is supposed to regulate. That is a structural conflict of interest that we should not accept, as my noble Friend the Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones has said in the other place.

Will the Minister put the strategy’s targets on a statutory footing, with binding milestones, so that a 35% target by 2030 cannot slip into something entirely different? Secondly, will he make the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods ambitious from day one, properly funded, independent and able to validate methods at pace? Thirdly, will he arrange an independent review of the regulator, the ASRU, and address its funding conflicts of interest? The regulator should not be paid by those it regulates.

In responding to the debate, the Minister will no doubt remind us that the carefully regulated use of animals in research remains necessary for medical reasons, but that is not enough of an answer to the petition, and it does not answer the questions this debate puts before us. There is no reason why the regulator should be funded by those it regulates, there is no reason why our targets should not be on a statutory footing, and there is no reason why dogs—the obvious first candidate for replacement—should still be used in repeat dose toxicity testing up to 2030. Those are reasonable, meaningful and achievable changes that the Government could make, and they should be taking action now.

17:19

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate, and I thank the petitioners and campaigners who have brought the issue before Parliament. Many of them are my City of Durham constituents, and I am pleased to represent them today.

We often talk in this place about giving people a voice, but today we also provide one to other sentient beings. This debate ought to be about not just more humane treatment for animals but, importantly, better science, better regulation and better outcomes, as well as higher welfare standards. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a welcome step. It recognises that the UK should move towards phasing out animal use in all but exceptional circumstances, and it commits funding for alternatives, including through the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and a preclinical translational models hub. The question is whether that strategy is ambitious enough.

Organisations such as Camp Beagle, Animal Defenders International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society International UK and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments are concerned that, although the strategy has good intentions, it is not yet hard enough on delivery, and lacks clear statutory targets, a firm timetable and proper accountability for whether animal use is falling. That matters, because the scale remains significant. Home Office figures show that there were around 2.6 million scientific procedures involving animals in Great Britain in 2024. That represents a negligible 1.21% decrease on 2023. Animal Defenders International and the Herbie’s law campaign report that 2,646 procedures involved dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, and that most of those procedures were for regulatory purposes. Nearly 2,000 procedures were on non-human primates, a staggering number of which will face lengthy and stressful transportation from Africa or Asia to then endure a life of experimentation. Simply put, that feels unethical.

The Government have set targets to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in some pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular safety studies by 2030. That is welcome, but it is limited. It does not amount to a clear route to ending unnecessary dog testing, and does not fully address the question of second species testing, in which dogs are still used even though campaigners and researchers argue that the added scientific value can be weak.

There is a serious scientific case for moving faster. The Thomas, Chancellor and Micklus clinical development report on success rates from 2011 to 2020 showed an overall likelihood of approval from phase 1 of only 7.9%. Campaigners rightly point to that as evidence that the current system is not delivering as well as patients, researchers and animals need it to. Crucially, animal models do not always translate reliably into human biology. Results that appear promising in animals can fail when they reach human trials, while potentially useful treatments may be delayed or lost because animal data does not accurately reflect how the human body responds. That should not make us less serious about safety. Instead, we should embrace methods that give us better evidence, better predictions and better outcomes. That is why human-relevant science matters. Alternatives in this area are developing quickly, such as organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell models, computational modelling and AI-assisted advanced imaging. Those are not fringe ideas; they are increasingly central to the future of modern biomedical research.

The Government should strengthen their strategy by setting clearer annual milestones, publishing the baseline behind their targets, giving regulators such as the MHRA a clear mandate to accept validated alternatives, and ensuring animal welfare organisations and independent scientists are involved in monitoring progress. The UK has a real opportunity to lead in humane, human-relevant science, but that will need more than warm words. It will require pace, transparency, investment and a willingness to challenge outdated regulatory habits.

When it is reported that seven out of 10 people in Britain support the introduction of a new law that would end animal experiments in medical research by 2035, it is clear that we must take this topic seriously. We owe it to our constituents and the animals that suffer for our gain. The Government have made a start; they now need to go further and faster.

17:21

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified.

Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless.

Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself.

The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients.

The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly.

The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public.

The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty.

This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.

17:28

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I believe that the time has come to end animal testing in this country, and to do so with urgency, ambition and honesty. This debate has rightly been driven by the public. Some 152 residents across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have joined others across the country to tell us that the status quo is no longer acceptable, and I agree. Over 2.6 million animal procedures took place in Great Britain in 2024, and behind that number are living creatures capable of pain and distress. We cannot simply look away from that anymore.

Like many Members, I am an animal lover. At home, our dog, Foggy, is part of the family—thank God he is. He is the only one still happy to see me when I get home on a Thursday night, and he is also the only one, along with my mum, that listens in to see whether my voice comes on when a debate is on the TV. If he is listening now, I want my slippers back; they were not there this morning, and he needs to dig them out for me.

My children have always struggled to understand why we treat some animals with love and protection, while others are used in ways that cause harm—frankly, so do many adults. I recognise that animal testing has historically played a role in medical advances, but the scientific landscape is now rapidly changing, and there are many other emerging options out there. Human-specific technologies, from advanced cell models to computer simulations, are already providing credible and, in some cases, more accurate alternatives.

This is not a question of whether we can move away from animal testing, but of whether we have the political will to lead that transition. The principle of replacement, reduction and refinement has taken us some of the way, but it is no longer enough. We need a fourth R: replacement at pace. We need a clear, time-bound strategy to phase out animal testing wherever alternatives exist and to drive innovation where they do not. That means scaling up investment in non-animal methods, fast-tracking their validation so that regulators can rely on them, and using the full weight of Government to remove barriers to their adoption. It also means being prepared to challenge outdated regulatory requirements that still default to animal testing even when better options are available.

This Labour Government have rightly placed growth, science and innovation at the heart of their agenda. There is a real opportunity for Britain to lead the world in ethical science, creating high-value jobs while ending practices that the public increasingly reject. Leadership requires clarity, however: we should set a clear national mission to end animal testing, with milestones, accountability and transparency built in—not warm words, but measurable progress.

The testing of cosmetic products and their ingredients on animals was banned in the UK in 1998, and the testing of completed household products was banned in 2015. Today I support Herbie’s law, a bold step towards a future where animals are no longer used in the name of science. The law would prompt a decade of change, mandating the replacement of animals in medical research in the UK with humane, effective alternatives by 2035. It is a commitment to progress, compassion and a brighter future for all. We can do that—we should do that—and now we must get on and deliver it.

It is said, “A true friend leaves pawprints on your heart”. We need to use our heads and hearts to stop testing on dogs immediately, and then move on to deliver Herbie’s law.

17:31

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her passionate introduction of the topic. I also thank the 238 of my constituents who signed the petition, the many who have written to me about it, and those who I have met at constituency surgeries.

There are three key reasons why we need to do much better on animal testing and move towards ending it. First, it is unethical in many cases; it has distressing side effects and often continues the suffering of animals when completely unnecessary. Long-lasting confinement to small cages, continued lack of social interaction and intrusive experiments can all contribute to extreme emotional and physical effects.

Secondly, animal testing leads to detachment from recognising that animals are living beings. According to the National Library of Medicine, the emotional and social behaviours of dogs and cats, for example, are comparable to those of young children; I declare an interest here, because my favourite animal is a cat. It is absolutely possible to have a conversation with a cat—I appreciate that many in this room will take that as further evidence for questioning my sanity, but I have had prolonged conversations with cats, albeit admittedly on their terms and using their language. One wonderful thing about cats is their enormous diversity of personalities: they all have their own character, likes and dislikes, and that is why they are so fascinating. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has said:

“Animals in laboratories are treated like disposable laboratory equipment”,

rather than as the emotional living beings that they are. Animals being tested on can experience psychological distress, including anxiety and depression.

The third key reason is the availability of alternatives: there are several emerging human-relevant models that can replace animal testing—artificial intelligence has already been mentioned, but there is also the advanced use of human cells and tissues, which can hopefully provide more relevant results. Having mentioned cats, it is sad to see, in the 2024 statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, that the number of experimental procedures on cats increased by 30% between 2023 and 2024. We need to be going in the other direction.

Many of my constituents have also written to me expressing their concerns about the treatment of beagles—a topic that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) covered in detail—and voicing concern about the seemingly contradictory approach that the Government are taking. Although they published their long-awaited strategy on animal testing in November 2025, since then the Government have authorised the use of more than 6.5 million animals in experiments over the coming years. Those experiments authorised by the Home Office include monkeys being subjected to invasive brain surgery, tests to do with eyes being done on rabbits, bile being collected from dogs, and many other upsetting things that other hon. Members have also described.

In conclusion, the Government are right to say that they are taking a step forward in their strategy, and I know that many campaigners will welcome that. They are also right that we need a realistic plan for how we can end all animal testing and find other ways to safely test new medicines and treatments. However, many of my constituents and many campaigners will feel that what has been proposed so far does not go fast or far enough. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

17:35

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on opening this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on cats—I was interested in the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)’s comments about conversations with them, which many will relate to.

Fundamentally, we are a nation of animal lovers. More than 60% of UK households own a pet—or, in the case of cats, are owned by them. For millions of families across the country, our pets or other companion animals are not simply animals, but beloved members of our family. We care deeply about their welfare, and rightly so. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority on veterinary services, which will help to reduce the costs of pet care at a time when many households are still feeling the strain of rising costs. Cost should never be a barrier to getting our beloved animals treated when they are sick.

While we rightly focus on easing pressures on pet owners—something that is as much a welfare as a cost of living issue—we must also confront the wider question of how animals are treated in our society, particularly those hidden from public view in laboratories and testing facilities. At its heart, animal testing is a moral issue and an animal welfare issue, but it is also increasingly clear that it is a scientific and economic issue. I welcome the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which delivers on our manifesto commitment. That strategy is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30 million for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. The strategy includes a target that aims

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030”

and

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.”

The continued use of animals in experiments is not only inhumane, but often ineffective, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran eloquently outlined earlier. For example, dogs continue to be used in scientific testing despite clear biological differences between them and humans: they absorb drugs differently, their gastric pH levels differ from ours, their metabolic enzymes function differently and they have different cardiovascular systems, with higher heart rates and distinct electrical activity regulating their heartbeat. Those are not minor differences; they are fundamental biological distinctions that can make dogs poor predictors for how treatments will behave in humans.

The consequences are plain to see. Developing a new medicine takes, on average, 14 years and costs more than £1 billion, yet more than 95% of drugs fail before reaching patients. That is not simply an inefficient system—it is evidence that elements of our drug development model are no longer fit for purpose. The continued reliance on animal testing is part of that problem. Behind the statistics is the ethical reality. Animals used in experiments are subject to invasive procedures, prolonged confinement and real distress, and are often left with lasting physical and physiological harm. The British public are fully aware of the scale of that harm, which is why they are demanding change. Indeed, more than seven in 10 Brits support a ban on animal testing, according to a YouGov poll from last year.

“Change” is the slogan this Government were elected on, and change on this issue is eminently possible. Around the world, momentum is building towards modern alternatives—human-relevant technologies, advanced cell modelling and AI-driven methods—that are often more accurate, efficient and humane than animal experimentation. I urge the Government to move forward with Herbie’s law and to set a clear national pathway to phase out animal experiments over the next decade, working closely with scientists, researchers and industry to accelerate the transition to modern alternatives.

This is not a choice between compassion and progress—we can achieve both. We can lead the world in pioneering better science; we can reduce unnecessary suffering; and we can build a future in which medical innovation is not dependent on outdated, inhumane practices. That would be a victory for science, for patients and, above all, for animals and their welfare.

17:40

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate. I also recognise and thank the hundreds of Yeovil constituents who signed this petition and previous petitions on this subject.

Research now shows that the failure rate of translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments is around 92%, and has been for the past few decades. Those failures are due either to safety concerns or to the fact that the product does not work. However, more than anything, testing on animals, including thousands of dogs and primates, is cruel. Like many of my constituents, I have a lovely dog, who is called Roo. No matter how hard our day might be, when we see that smile and waggy tail, it makes everything so much better. We love our pets like family, so when I see videos of dogs and other animals used for testing in poor conditions, I cannot help but think of my Roo.

Of course we have regulations meant to make sure that testing is ethical, but the report for 2024 by the Government’s own Animals in Science Regulation Unit shows that some establishments are still failing to provide proper care for testing animals. That is not good enough and we should stop it immediately. Given that animal testing is cruel and often not efficient, my constituents tell me that they want to see a clear pathway to phasing it out as soon as possible, and in particular an end to animal toxicity testing. We have a real shot at that, thanks to amazing developments in AI, large datasets, cell engineering, cutting-edge disease modelling and other technology and methods.

In that context, the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a strong start, and I welcome the funding commitments that have come with it. However, I hope the Minister can answer a few questions. On standards, beyond increasing the number of inspectors, what steps are being taken to strengthen regulation and oversight of animal testing, if the Government will not commit to a clear target for phasing it out? When will we see regulation and guidance on AI-informed decision making? How will the Government keep guidance up to date, given how quickly AI is developing? Finally, while it is great that the Government are committed to international leadership and co-operation on ending testing on animals, what action has that commitment translated into so far? What is being done to push the private sector to invest more in development and using alternatives?

When we cannot be sure that it is effective, testing on animals is not science—it is just violence. My constituents want no part in it.

17:43

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. She is a fantastic, tireless champion of the rights of animals and does a great job chairing the APPG on phasing out animal experiments, of which I am proud to be a member. I also thank the 211 constituents in Newport West and Islwyn who signed this petition to end animal testing. The fact that the Public Gallery is so full today is testament to how important this subject is to so many across the UK.

We have already heard that the number of procedures in 2024 was some 2.6 million, just 2% lower than the preceding year. Although 2024 marked the lowest number of scientific procedures involving living animals since 2001, the pace of reduction is far too slow. Britain, as we have already heard, is proudly badged as a nation of animal lovers and a world leader in animal welfare, but it is critical that we do not rest on our laurels. Indeed, continued leadership requires urgent commitments on further reforms to the regulatory, licensing and inspection regime governing the use of animals in science on the UK. I aim to touch on each of those areas in my speech —but I will be brief, as I can see the Chair’s eyebrows raising.

I first turn to regulation. I greatly welcome the Labour Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy, and their clear ambition for phasing out basket grouping of unnecessary tests on animals in the near future. I particularly support funding for a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and investment in non-animal method technologies.

Although the strategy is detailed and comprehensive, I still believe that there are areas where we can go further. Embedding the targets to phase out routine tests prioritised as part of baskets 1 and 2 in law would provide absolute certainty to both the scientific community and campaigners of our commitment to end the use of animals in testing. Such a step could also bring in wider investment in UK scientific research, strengthening our position as a global leader in the development of animal-free testing methods. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to introducing Herbie’s law and enshrining the targets committed to in the recent strategy in legislation.

I turn to licensing, which I have raised previously in Westminster Hall debates. I continue to believe that the Animals in Science Regulation Unit needs urgent reform. One of the key roles of the ASRU is administering the licensing regime created by ASPA. That is critical to reducing the number of animals used in scientific testing, as the Act already requires proactive consideration of the three Rs framework: replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in such experiments. That is supposed to ensure that animals are used only as a last resort, but the embedding of the approach needs strengthening. That was a key reflection of the Rawle report, published in 2023, which voiced concerns that the welfare inspection regime risked embedding a focus on “box-ticking” rather than ensuring a culture of genuine commitment to advancing the three Rs.

I greatly welcome the Government recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only where there is no alternative in line with the findings of the Rawle report. I therefore ask the Minister to report on the progress being made by his Department in strengthening the application of the three Rs following the publication of the Animals in Science Committee’s January report, and in advance of its forthcoming report in September.

Of particular importance is strengthening the ASRU’s understanding of the rapid developments in non-animal methods—NAMs. That is essential to ensuring that the application of the three Rs is effective and in line with international best practice, such as that now being implemented by the US Food and Drug Administration as part of its road map. It is interesting that the US is now ahead of us in this area. I urge the Minister that we need to get back on top here.

Responsibility for driving this change sits directly with Ministers, with statutory duties to assess for the three Rs—particularly replacement, which sits with the Home Secretary. As such, Ministers must drive the necessary reform of the ASRU, ensuring that it has the expertise to effectively and independently verify whether applications have been appropriately evaluated against NAMs.

The ASRU has typically been composed of vets, who unfortunately, given the fast-moving nature of the field, do not always have up-to-date expertise in modern NAMs, including organs on chips and computational biology. Those handling applications need to be well versed in those technologies and able to engage in critical questions around scientific methodologies and data validation, rather than reliant on a replacement checklist. ASPA requires that scientifically satisfactory NAMs are used “wherever possible”. Given that, and the section 2A duties on the Home Secretary—I appreciate that is a different Department—I ask the Minister what steps they are taking to improve the training and expertise available to ASRU inspectors to allow them to effectively and independently verify application compliance with ASPA.

Of particular concern are tests taken under the so-called “generic” project licences as highlighted by Animal Aid and Animals International. Those licences are granted without knowing the substances being tested, and as such, a harm-benefit analysis cannot have been done. I therefore ask the Minister what specific steps he is taking to review “generic” project licences to avoid unnecessary harm and strengthen application of the three Rs. I appreciate that relates to a different Department, but I am sure that his Department will be working in lockstep with the Home Office, so I look forward to the response.

Turning to enforcement, adherence to ASPA within licensed premises also continues to be a site of significant concern. The latest annual report from the ASRU made extremely grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. That includes extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. In total, those cases detail the suffering of more than 22,000 animals. Those numbers are significant, but unfortunately they only reflect breaches self-reported to the ASRU. My fear is that the numbers are far greater than those documented. That only underlines the importance of an effective inspection regime and promoting a proactive culture of safeguarding animal welfare.

Despite the ASRU issuing more than 15,000 licences in 2024, at the end of that year, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. That means that just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, with only 10 of those inspections being unannounced. I therefore welcome commitments made by the Government to increase the number of veterinary and medical inspectors working for the ASRU, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government have been successful in recruiting to meet the previously stated target of 22 inspectors by March this year.

In closing, the continued testing on animals demands moral leadership. That requires urgent implementation of the replacing animals in science strategy, strengthening enforcement of ASPA, and using Britain’s unique position as a global leader in animal welfare and pharmaceuticals to chart a global path towards ending animal testing once and for all. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and I urge the Minister to go faster in eradicating animal testing. The public is impatient and wants change quickly, and so do we.

17:51

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on an excellent opening speech.

All life is a miracle and every living creature has an intrinsic value that we cannot measure or put a price on, so I am not in the least bit surprised that hundreds of my constituents signed this petition. We rightly expect the highest standards for animals bred in this country and should demand the same for those imported from abroad. The British people want tough penalties on cruelty. Labour’s animal welfare agenda, from tackling puppy farming to ending trail hunting, brings policy closer to the public’s values.

Those same values matter when we consider animal testing. Given the invasive, painful and often lethal nature of these experiments, the burden of justification has to be immense. It is not enough to say that the ends justify the means; the ends themselves must be clearly achievable, necessary and proportionate enough to warrant such suffering. In other words, we cannot morally justify harming animals simply because we consider ourselves a more intelligent species.

If some disagree with that statement, it is a useful thought experiment to consider whether we would accept it as morally justifiable and acceptable for a provably more intelligent species to experiment on our families and loved ones for their own purposes. Would we stand by and nod along stoically that all species can rightly be used however they wish by another that has a more developed brain? I think not.

A genuinely moral justification can be attempted only if the scale of suffering prevented by testing on living creatures provably and overwhelmingly outweighs the suffering of the test patients themselves. Too often, that case is simply not made. When we weigh the public interest in research and medical progress against the imperative to minimise harm to animals, the balance just does not stack up to scrutiny. Animal testing is often cruel and would often pass for barbaric sadism in any other context.

More profoundly still, the scientific value of animal testing is often overstated. As we have heard repeatedly today, there is growing evidence that animal models can be unreliable predictors for human outcomes, and we have an increasing range of scientific tools and models that offer a more accurate alternative. If the suffering we are inflicting on these animals is profound but the result is uncertain, can the means really be justified at all?

Herbie’s law would help to correct that balance, through a phased transition by 2035 away from animal experimentation and towards more effective alternatives, including human-specific methods backed by training and support for scientists. More than 2 million animals were used in experiments in our country in 2024 alone. That is suffering on an immense scale, affecting animals alive today and countless more yet to be bred into a system of pain. Herbie’s law offers the chance to turn a historic page and reduce suffering, improve science and move our laws closer to the values that the public already hold. That would be a profound step forward for animals living now and those spared this fate in future. I urge Ministers to adopt Herbie’s law in full as a matter of urgency.

17:55

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must be the night owl of this debate.

I have long believed that replacing the use of animals in experiments is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is the mark of a civilised society that we treat animals well. It is ethically sound, but can also be economically beneficial. Replacement technologies are a real growth opportunity for the life sciences sector. Human base models are more accurate and relevant, saving time and aiding profitability. A KPMG UK life sciences report argued that, if new technologies are employed, they have the potential to accelerate market entry for innovative products by up to two years, potentially saving up to £7.8 million. What is more, the UK is well positioned to lead. We have a really strong life sciences sector, especially across the east of England, as well as expertise and infrastructure. If we unleash our scientists alongside a Government with really clear objectives, the future is bright.

That is also what people want. Petitions like the one we are debating, poll after poll, and the number of people in the Public Gallery show that the UK public really want to see action. A statistic I find interesting is that 76% of people want to see funding diverted from animal experiments to animal-free methods. They do not want animals to suffer. We have heard so many examples of that suffering throughout the debate, like the 2,646 dogs used in experiments in 2024. That led to horrific outcomes: vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding, organ failure and, ultimately, death.

We can do better, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. We can learn from the ban on animal testing for cosmetics, which was brought in in the UK in 1998—under a Labour Government, of course—and introduced across the EU in 2013. That cosmetic testing ban pushed science to meet the legal deadlines. It accelerated work to develop and approve new non-animal methods. The ban also stimulated big investment in non-animal methods: over €238 million in EU funding was spent on those between 2007 and 2011. Without the legal deadlines set by those bans, it is likely that many of the non-animal methods we know today would simply not exist.

Whenever I read research websites or documents, I am struck by how often many of them are at pains to point out that they stick to the letter of the law, no more, no less—perhaps more importantly, no more. That is why the law must be a key driver of change. As we have heard, science is moving at pace, with organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell-based models, computer models and AI, which we hear about in all kinds of debates but can particularly take heart from here. When the astronauts went off to the moon recently, I saw that they took some of those organs on chips with them. That is progress. We used to take monkeys, dogs and mice and blast them into space, and now we are taking an organ on a chip instead.

Back down on Earth, this is clearly an area where Britain can lead, but it also involves a truly international approach. Back in 2018, I went to the United Nations alongside Cruelty Free International. We handed over a petition with 8 million signatures from across the world, calling for a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics. I was struck by a couple of things. First, it was hard to find where in the UN the responsibility for that sat; it spans different Departments in the UK, and that is an issue across the world too.

Secondly, we have not yet even managed a global ban on cosmetics testing on animals—only around 45 countries have secured that to date—so we need British leadership on that, as well as on testing for medical procedures. This matters because many of the testing procedures carried out in the UK are done to meet overseas requirements for pharmaceuticals, so it is not something that we can tackle alone. I would be very grateful if the Minister could outline how we are working with our international partners to achieve harmonisation, more international co-operation, consistent frameworks and transparent data exchange.

[Graham Stuart In the Chair]

It is also important that we are positive about our scientists. We abhor it when we see researchers carrying out experiments that we do not think should be done on animals, but we must never be anti-scientist, because it is the scientists who will make sure we have these brand-new methods. We need them, so we have to be relentlessly pro-scientist. I have no doubt that our amazing scientists can rise to this challenge, especially when the Government set out really clear expectations. Together, we can ensure that the UK is at the forefront of innovation and meets the expectations of the public that we serve.

18:01

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate and for her tireless championing of animal welfare in Parliament. This is not the first debate to be secured on animal welfare issues, and it really is making a difference. We rarely have the Gallery full, but the fact that it is today shows how many people support animal welfare and care about Herbie’s law and ending animal testing.

Like other Members, I have been contacted by many constituents about this subject. I will not repeat everyone’s arguments, because they were all expressed very eloquently and put very well, but I will reiterate that an animal’s intelligence has no relation to its capacity to suffer. A sentient animal will experience pain, emotions, suffering and mental distress in the same way that we do. All the research that has been done has shown that animals have the same range and even depth of emotions as humans. They may get excited or scared about different things, but their lived experience is as real to them as ours is to us.

Many people mentioned their pets. We have a labrador called Moose. When he hears the fridge door open, he comes flying into the kitchen in excitement, and if he is caught on the sofa when he is not meant to be there, he clearly feels guilt. As a vet, having seen a variety of animal species—horses, cattle, dogs, cats, chickens—in states of distress, injury or sickness, I know that the emotion and suffering they feel is as strong as any person’s.

I served for years on the British Veterinary Association’s policy committee, and it very much supported the reduce, refine and replace model. That was several years ago, but we are now in a very exciting time, because it feels as though we finally have the technology that means that we really could move away from animal testing in a meaningful way and very quickly. Members have talked about computer modelling, organs on a chip and AI—the way it can model protein folding, and test various treatments and pharmaceuticals without having to use animals, potentially with even more valuable results. It is a really exciting time.

We as a country, and the Government, must ensure that we are supporting our life sciences industry to do that. Life sciences are coming forward with some of the most exciting breakthroughs in medicine to help solve a whole load of diseases that we never thought could be treated, including cancers and rare diseases. They are also vital to growing the economy. As we do all we can to support the life sciences industry, both in developing new technologies and in moving away from testing on animals, can the Minister say whether any work is being done to make sure that we do not inadvertently offshore animal testing? As upsetting as it is to have animal testing in the UK, standards are higher here than anywhere else in the world. What I would hate to see happen—I am sure that everyone is united on this—is for us to ban animal testing and move away from it here, and for it simply to be offshored to somewhere with less regulation and even more suffering to be caused as a consequence.

I also want to bring up the licensing of drugs that have already been tested. Currently, drugs are tested on animals; if they pass animal testing, they go on to humans; and if they pass human testing, they get a licence. The drugs have been proven to work in animals, yet they do not have a licence for the animals and cannot be used in them. It seems to me that if something has passed safety tests and been proven to work in animals, there should be automatic licensing, or what we call dual licensing, to ensure that the animals on which there has been testing have the benefit of the drug. Currently, that is not the case.

We also have situations in which drugs pass animal tests but fail human tests and then cannot be used on the animals, even though they passed those tests. Although we want to move away from animal testing, it seems wrong that animals cannot mutually benefit, from a legal perspective, from the testing that has already been done. I hosted an event last week for the Humanimal Trust, which is calling for dual licensing. Its academics are from the vet school at the University of Surrey. I would be very keen for the Minister, if he is interested, to meet that team, because they have done a lot of work on this issue as well.

We are looking at updating the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. There is currently a cascade for the prescription of drugs for animals, and sometimes pharmaceutical companies can get a retrospective licence. For example, there might be a human drug that is used in animals and is working really well. The drug company will then do the research and get a licence for that specific drug, and then no one else can use it and it becomes very expensive. We would like to look at how the Act, and the cascade for prescribing for animals, can mean that drugs that have been proven to work in humans and animals are more easily prescribed.

This is a really good example that many people will have encountered: they go to the vet, who prescribes paracetamol that costs a lot of money, but then they discover that paracetamol is 16p in a shop. As vets, we are not allowed to prescribe that paracetamol for a dog. We are not trying to fleece people; it is not legal, and a vet prescribing it would be struck off. That is how the law works at the moment. I am really keen that, along with the desperately needed update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, we look at prescribing rules and licensing as a big, holistic piece of work.

I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in coalition, managed to bring forward the work to stop the testing of household products on animals. I am very proud to be an honorary senior lecturer at Bristol University vet school in the area of One Health. For anyone who does not know, that is the recognition that human health, animal health and environmental health are all completely interlinked. There are many diseases and things like antimicrobial resistance that affect humans and animals. We know that 75% of new and emerging infectious diseases that could potentially cause a pandemic are of animal origin. They are often related to farming practices as well. It is impossible to improve human health, environmental health or animal health without seeing the three as completely linked and addressing them all. Moving away from animal testing but having more accurate testing, and the right licensing and regulation, to ensure that animals and humans can mutually benefit from scientific advances is not only an opportunity but the morally right thing to do.

18:08

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. This is my first time responding to a petition debate and I am happy to do so under your chairmanship, Sir. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on most ably leading the debate, and I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition.

The previous Conservative Government had a strong record on improving animal welfare standards across the board with measures such as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep and pigs, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised vertebrate animals as sentient beings for the first time; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences across animal health and welfare against farm animals, zoo animals and pets; and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022, which banned the use of glue traps in England in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic, and one on which many people hold extremely strong views, so it is absolutely right that animal testing is heavily regulated. It is clear that there is a national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and I am pleased that the Government have continued to take the welfare of animals as seriously as the previous Government did.

The use of protected animals for any experimental or other scientific procedure that causes

“pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”

to the animal is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Scientific procedures covered by the Act are controlled using a triple licensing system enforced by the Home Office. That requires a personal licence for the scientific investigator, a licence for the establishment where the procedure is to take place, and a project licence, which contains details of the animals to be used and the procedures to be performed.

The Act requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, weighing the likely adverse effects on the animals against the scientific learning arising from the procedure. The UK has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction and refinement of research design—the three Rs. That requires licence applicants to demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Moreover, under existing legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can be used in research only when no alternative methods are available.

In 2024, 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of the animals used in those procedures, 73% were mice. That figure seems huge, but it must be recognised that it is 37% lower than the recent peak of 4.1 million in 2015. That is a welcome development, but more work definitely needs to be done.

It has been hugely valuable to hear the range of views of those who have taken part in this very constructive debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. There were lots of passionate interventions —in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) gave us particular food for thought on the testing of botox—but let me focus on the substantive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did his job as a local MP and visited a lab to give us an understanding of the scenario. It is difficult for us to think about what goes on in there, and we thank him for setting that out for us. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the pragmatic approach to testing, but also about an aggressive and urgent push to move to alternative processes as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) stressed that, especially in an area as important as this one, ambition is not enough, and that a strategy needs to be implemented urgently. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the ethics involved and showed that, while animals may not have a voice, hon. Members can provide one for them—and she did so extraordinarily well.

The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) talked about the possibility of using AI to replace experimentation, and about not being anti-science, but using better science. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) reminded us of the deep relationships that we can have with animals. I do hope that his slippers are returned very soon. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) developed the theme of our relationship with animals and told us of his conversations with cats. Nobody has ever won a debate with a cat, and we could use some of that feline tenacity in pushing this issue through. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again stressed the need to move to modern alternatives, and that was also highlighted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance).

The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) raised important questions about licensing and enforcement, and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) raised important questions about morality. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about how the mark of a civilised society is treating animals well—I concur.

Let me stress that the Conservatives are keen to support any work that aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives whenever possible. I welcome that the Government have published a road map for phasing out animal testing. While we support its broad aims, there are concerns, such as that life sciences’ research and investment could move overseas to countries that test on animals to far lower standards. At this point, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Concern arises because regulators have set out that certain products still require animal testing. Medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, and companies can move their operations to places where the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer. I ask the Minister to address that point.

On the timeline for the Government’s road map, will the Minister set out how the 2030 target for a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates is backed up by alternative methods? Is that actually achievable? How do the Government plan to report to the House on whether the milestones are being met, and what happens if alternative methods are not validated in time?

The goal of seeing no animal suffer needlessly in a laboratory is one that we all share, but that vision is not enough on its own. If we move too slowly, we betray the millions of people who rightly find the continued use of animals in laboratories morally unacceptable, but moving too fast, without validated alternatives, risks both patient safety and the very sector that funds the research on which we all depend. We will continue to ask those questions of the Government and hold them accountable for their actions.

18:16

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, in this important debate. I thank Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for being a doughty campaigner for not just her constituents, but all their pets and animals. She has done that since she came into this place in 2024, and she deserves a great deal of respect and admiration for it. I also thank each and every one of the many people who took the time to sign the e-petition and those who are in the Public Gallery today.

I look forward to the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research. Unfortunately, that day is not quite yet with us. Our direction of travel is very clear: we want to replace animals in science wherever possible, which was why our 2024 manifesto committed us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. Our approach to achieve that is set out in last November’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which many Members mentioned.

The strategy is groundbreaking. It brings together funding, infrastructure and regulatory partners so that validated alternatives can move from the lab into routine use safely and at pace. Many Members have talked about pace, which is the key issue here. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research unfortunately remains.

First, I will expand on the ambition to phase out animal research. Secondly, although we are not yet fully ready to end testing on dogs and other animals, given the current position of science, I will set out the plan that we will put in place to do so. The petition asked the Government to accelerate the move to human-relevant alternative methodologies, and that is exactly the purpose of the strategy. It is about speeding up development and validation, increasing uptake in practice, and working with regulators so that when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used.

The strategy is not just words; it is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods. I will break that down shortly, given that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked about it. We are already delivering at pace by working with regulators and partners to streamline routes for validated alternatives to be accepted, backing researchers with new funding through UK Research and Innovation, and supporting the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies, ensuring that advances are reflected in policy and practice, and that regulations on animal research are seen through.

Nearly £16 million of new investment has been announced through the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and Innovate UK, working in partnership with NC3Rs to accelerate the development of human disease models. The MRC has also launched a £20 million funding competition to establish a pre-clinical translational human in vitro models hub, and Innovate UK has committed a further £2 million for non-animal methods that have the potential to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in assessing the pre-clinical pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular safety of new medicines.

We are building the collaboration and infrastructure needed to scale up alternatives into everyday research and development and safety assessments where it is safe and effective to do so. We are also working to increase regulatory confidence so that, when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used consistently, and at pace, in practice.

We are consistently pushing change. In 2024, the use of dogs in experimental procedures decreased by 29% compared with 2023, as many Members said, and the broader trend is towards reducing animal use as alternatives continue to improve, but we are not complacent, and we should not be complacent. We want to get that figure as close to zero as possible.

As the strategy sets out, we are working towards a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but very exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods whenever possible, but does not prevent necessary research and safety testing when no alternative is available. By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use while continuing to support crucial research and innovation. As the science advances, we will use every opportunity to phase out the use of animals whenever we can.

I will run through some of the issues around the strategy and also address the comments that hon. Members made. Lord Vallance is responsible for this area in the House of Lords—I am the responsible Minister in the House of Commons—and he has probably the most advanced scientific brain that I have ever come across in government. He said something that I think is worth emphasising about this strategy:

“This Government is proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to ‘partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing’”—

I have reflected on some of that already. He also said:

“we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing”.

We will align with international standards and we will say more about that at the end of this year. He continued:

“Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated…Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals”.

Nobody in our country of animal lovers—we have many animal lovers here, including me—wants to see animals suffering. Our plan will support work to end animal testing and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so. That road map that will ensure that the Government, businesses and animal-welfare groups can work together to find those alternatives to animal testing faster and more effectively.

There are 26 actions in the strategy. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Stuart, that I will not run through them all, but many hon. Members will know the document.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

[Ian Murray]

We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.

Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.

Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:

“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”

Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.

I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.

Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?

[Johanna Baxter]

Mo Meowlam!

[Ian Murray]

Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.

Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?

[Ian Murray]

We will write to my hon. Friend with the details on those individual projects—the regulations are run by the Home Office, so I will write to her on those three specific issues and make sure that everyone in the Chamber has a copy.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said that the scale of the suffering prevented should overwhelmingly outweigh the suffering involved in testing. I think we would all agree with that. That is exactly the proportionate way in which we need to look at the issue. It is undeniable that huge pharmaceutical and medical progress has been made on the back of animal testing—the covid vaccine was a good example of alleviating suffering—but he is right to challenge us on that moral issue. That is why the strategy is in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) is right that replacing animals in testing is the right thing to do and that the public want to see action. We agree; that is why we are taking action. The strategy should seed that innovation. It is not just about the Government saying, “This is what we want to achieve.” Hopefully, the industry and innovation will seed that through. We have seen that with other advancements, such as the ban on cosmetics testing that my hon. Friend talked about. Hopefully, that will seed industry to move forward and find innovative ways through, backed by the Government strategy.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), listed the advances in life science innovation; that is tremendous progress, but we need to go further and faster to move away from animal testing. He posed that challenge and we agree with him. He also made the important point that we have a strict regulatory environment for animal testing in this country. I will come on to that in my conclusion, but it is one of strictest in the world, and rightly so.

The hon. Member rightly challenged us by pointing out the danger that if we were to cut animal testing off now, it would go overseas, and in that case we would see a whole raft of additional animals suffering in places that do not have the same standards. That is not to diminish the issue. While we have testing in this country and regulate it to those standards, we should be making sure that the standards are met, notwithstanding all the issues that have been raised by Members today. However, there is a real danger that if we were to cut that off now, without alternatives in place, it would go overseas—an issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), also raised.

We will have to come back to the hon. Member for Winchester on dual licensing for veterinary use. There is an issue with the way in which animal testing works with regard to the licensing arrangements that he set out. Animal testing is also used for the veterinary side of medicines and advancements in technology, and we must be cognisant of that.

I appreciate the tone in which the shadow Minister spoke. There has been a lot done in this area; many Members have mentioned the word “pace”, and that is what we want to see, but the previous Government took a number of actions. Is a 35% reduction by 2030 achievable? We think it is. Many would say that that is not ambitious enough and some would say that it is too ambitious, but we do want to achieve it. That is why the strategy is in place, and why money is a key part of it.

Using animals in science requires us to adhere continually to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That is reflected in the UK’s world-leading, robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That 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 animals is limited to the absolute minimum. Those requirements are known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, as we have discussed.

Dogs are a specifically protected species under ASPA. Projects must justify why animals are needed, why dogs specifically are needed, and why the numbers and procedures are necessary. Projects are only authorised where that justification is robust. The e-petition rightly mentions the conditions in which dogs are kept, and I want to address those claims—not to dismiss them, but to show that the regulatory system in the UK works. The UK has some of the most stringent regulations in the world governing how animals are bred, housed and cared for, with legally enforceable standards, regular announced and unannounced inspections, and a clear requirement to minimise pain, suffering and distress.

The use of animals in science is highly regulated. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to replace the use of animals completely. For now, animal testing and research plays an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals—for example, the development of the covid-19 vaccine.

Many Members have mentioned failure rates. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. The petition points out that 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval. However, to say that 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals is to ignore all those candidate drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable to progress to human trials. That is the issue that we are trying to resolve. Animal studies are only one part of a layered system that screens out unsafe or ineffective substances before they ever reach volunteers and patients.

Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the MHRA; that is another international issue we have to resolve. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. The key proposal in the petition calls for the end of testing on dogs and other animals for the development of products for human use.

None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated in this country. However, an immediate prohibition would undermine the UK’s ability to test and regulate new medicines and vaccines for humans and, indeed, for the animals themselves. We would be unable to meet our international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, which would prevent virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK from happening, compromise our capacity to respond rapidly to future health threats, result in slower access to new treatments for UK patients and slow the innovation required to remove animal testing altogether. That is the key challenge that we are seeking to achieve with the strategy.

We want a future where animals are used only in very exceptional circumstances and we are acting as fast as we can to get there through the “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its delivery. We will keep driving the shift to validated alternative methods wherever possible, while maintaining the robust protections that keep people, animals and the environment safe in the meantime. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate; I am sure we will have many more in the future, and I look forward to working together as the strategy progresses.

18:40

[Irene Campbell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for his response, although I am sure he is not surprised that I disagree with quite a bit of it. I hope the responsible Minister will consider implementing at pace—I use that word again, as many others have—the replacement methods we have heard so much about in this debate. I urge the responsible Minister to rescind the forced swim test licences immediately and to prioritise a review of the whole licensing system, because there are problems with that whole system.

We must also have more robust enforcement of what is going on in laboratories. I accept that statements have been made that there is enforcement and that animals are being looked after in the way they should be, but we have heard examples today where that often is not the case. There is so much self-reporting, which begs the question: what is not reported?

The petition addresses an issue I care deeply about, and it is clear from the attendance and excellent speeches today that it is important to many. It is a privilege to present such debates in Parliament. The United Kingdom is often referred to as a nation of animal lovers, and petitions such as this show how deeply the public care about animal welfare and the treatment of animals in laboratories.

I thank Jarrod Bailey and Maria Iriart for meeting me on behalf of Camp Beagle, which launched this petition, and the many individuals, charities and organisations that I work with on this issue. I will name a few: Animal Aid, Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, PETA, Lush Cosmetics, the Labour Animal Welfare Society and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Everyone is working so hard to end animal testing. As ever, I thank Petitions Committee staff for all their help in organising this debate and meetings. I will end with the words of Camp Beagle:

“Animal testing is outdated, unreliable and cruel.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing.

18:42

Sitting adjourned.