Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 1 July (HL1346), when an application for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was last rejected on the grounds that it would involve unacceptable levels of harm beyond the lawful category of severe.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, project licences cannot authorise procedures that may cause the animal severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be alleviated. The earliest project licence application data currently available to the Home Office Regulator on the current e-licensing system dates from late 2021. No project licences have been refused on the grounds that a proposal would involve unacceptable levels of harm beyond the lawful category of severe since that date.

The number of formal refusals is not, however, a meaningful indicator of regulatory rigour. All applications go through multiple review stages before reaching the Home Office Regulator, and guidance is available to assist applicants in preparing submissions that meet all legal requirements. Applicants may also revise or withdraw an application in response to feedback. Only applications that fully meet the requirements of the legislation may be considered for licensing authorisation.

Home Office Inspectors assess the likely pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm that animals may experience using the information provided in project licence applications. They consider factors including the nature, severity, duration and frequency of adverse effects, the number and proportion of animals likely to be affected, and the measures proposed to minimise those harms.

Each planned procedure, or series of procedures, is assigned a prospective severity classification (non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe) which reflects the greatest level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm likely to be experienced by any animal after all appropriate refinement measures have been applied. As part of the statutory harm-benefit analysis, a Home Office Inspector considers the expected harms and the anticipated benefits of the programme of work. A licence will not be granted unless the Inspector is satisfied that the likely harms are justified by the expected benefits, and that the requirements of the 3Rs — Replacement, Reduction and Refinement — have been met.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 1 July (HL1346), how the level of pain expected to be experienced by animals is measured within the harm-benefit analysis.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, project licences cannot authorise procedures that may cause the animal severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be alleviated. The earliest project licence application data currently available to the Home Office Regulator on the current e-licensing system dates from late 2021. No project licences have been refused on the grounds that a proposal would involve unacceptable levels of harm beyond the lawful category of severe since that date.

The number of formal refusals is not, however, a meaningful indicator of regulatory rigour. All applications go through multiple review stages before reaching the Home Office Regulator, and guidance is available to assist applicants in preparing submissions that meet all legal requirements. Applicants may also revise or withdraw an application in response to feedback. Only applications that fully meet the requirements of the legislation may be considered for licensing authorisation.

Home Office Inspectors assess the likely pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm that animals may experience using the information provided in project licence applications. They consider factors including the nature, severity, duration and frequency of adverse effects, the number and proportion of animals likely to be affected, and the measures proposed to minimise those harms.

Each planned procedure, or series of procedures, is assigned a prospective severity classification (non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe) which reflects the greatest level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm likely to be experienced by any animal after all appropriate refinement measures have been applied. As part of the statutory harm-benefit analysis, a Home Office Inspector considers the expected harms and the anticipated benefits of the programme of work. A licence will not be granted unless the Inspector is satisfied that the likely harms are justified by the expected benefits, and that the requirements of the 3Rs — Replacement, Reduction and Refinement — have been met.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are providing support to assist the implementation of Colombia's National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and, if so, whether funding for this reaches local organisations.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington

The UK is firmly committed to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Following the launch of Colombia's WPS National Action Plan, which the UK supported, we continue to work with the Colombian Government and civil society to support its implementation. UK funding has helped advance accountability and support for thousands of survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Colombia over the last ten years. The UK continues to advocate for women's full and equal participation in peace negotiations in Colombia and on a global scale, which we made clear during the statement delivered by the UK's Chargé d'Affaires to the UN Security Council on 17 June.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government what recent discussions they have had with the UK egg industry about implementing a trial of in-ovo sexing technology to prevent the culling of male chicks; and when they anticipate such a trial to take place.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

A commercial in-ovo sexing system was trialed at a UK hatchery last year to help the egg industry understand the logistics of in-ovo sexing. This Government will engage with the egg industry and technology companies on this issue.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government when they plan to enforce the commitment made in the Animal welfare strategy for England, published on 22 December 2025, to end the culling of male chicks in the egg industry.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

As set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, this Government would like to see an end to the practice of culling male chicks. The Government is monitoring the rapid progress currently being made with in-ovo sexing and has funded research into the use of dual breed chickens that remove the need to kill male chicks.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many badgers were culled in 2024 and 2025 in an effort to prevent the spread of tuberculosis in cattle; and of those badgers, how many were subsequently confirmed to have had tuberculosis.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The number of badgers culled under licence for bovine TB control purposes is published annually on GOV. UK. In 2024, the published total was 17,150.

Data on the numbers culled under licence in 2025 will be published in due course.

Badgers removed through intensive culling in the High Risk Area and Edge Area are not routinely submitted for M. bovis testing. No badgers were tested in these areas in 2024. Although some badgers were tested in 2025, the results are not yet known, as the study has not yet been completed.

Subject to capacity, badgers removed through culling operations in the Low Risk Area are sent to APHA laboratories for M. bovis testing. Not every badger removed through Low Risk Area operations may be tested for M. bovis.

Table 1: Number of badgers removed and tested for M. bovis in the Low Risk Area.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are (1) developing, or (2) supporting the development of, a vaccine to prevent tuberculosis in cattle; and if not, why not.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

This Government is actively supporting the development of a CattleBCG vaccine to help protect cattle against bovine TB. Government-funded field trials of the CattleBCG vaccine and companion Detect Infected amongst Vaccinated Animals (DIVA) skin test have been running since 2021, with the final planned phase now underway and due to complete by 2027. Evidence from these trials is supporting the regulatory process needed for future deployment. This Government remains committed to progressing cattle vaccination as an important component of long-term bovine TB control.

The recently published recommended Bovine TB Control Strategy for England (https://tbhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026-Recommended-Bovine-TB-Strategy.pdf) (see attached) sets a clear ambition to deploy a cattle vaccine and DIVA test by 2030. This Government will now carefully consider the recommendations in the proposed strategy.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many cattle were slaughtered because of suspected bovine tuberculosis in 2024 and 2025; and of those cattle, how many were subsequently confirmed to have had tuberculosis.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The number of cattle slaughtered for TB control purposes in Great Britain in 2024 and 2025 were as follows:

The comparative format of the tuberculin skin test used in the UK is very specific (99.98% at the standard interpretation), so the probability of a false positive result is roughly 1 in 5,000 to 6,000 uninfected cattle tested. This means the department can be confident that the vast majority of skin test-positive cattle (i.e. test reactors) are truly infected with TB, irrespective of post-mortem and laboratory findings.

Bovine TB statistics are published on GOV.UK and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bovine-tb.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are providing support to strengthen the participation of women in peacebuilding efforts in Columbia.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The UK is firmly committed to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Following the launch of Colombia's WPS National Action Plan, which the UK supported, we continue to work with the Colombian Government and civil society to support its implementation. UK funding has helped advance accountability and support for thousands of survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Colombia over the last ten years. The UK continues to advocate for women's full and equal participation in peace negotiations in Colombia and on a global scale, which we made clear during the statement delivered by the UK's Chargé d'Affaires to the UN Security Council on 17 June.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on women and girls of the 39 per cent reductions in bilateral ODA to Afghanistan by 2029.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The UK has committed £315 million to Afghanistan in the new spending review period to address the most severe impacts of Afghanistan's protracted crisis and protect the most vulnerable. While reducing the size of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget for Afghanistan will necessarily have an impact on the scale and reach of the work we do, we have taken steps to limit this. Women and girls will remain central to our approach, as highlighted in the UK international strategic framework on women and girls 2026. Funding allocations for Afghanistan are based on a robust Equalities Impact Assessment and aim to address the rights and needs of women and girls. We also remain steadfast in our commitment that at least half of those reached by UK aid in Afghanistan will be women and girls.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that their priorities are furthered by multilateral official development assistance spending contributions; and how will UK contributions will be recognised.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The Government remains committed to multilateral institutions. I refer the noble Baroness to the reply to HL2775, which affirms the Foreign Secretary's commitment to international institutions, as set out in a statement on 21 July. On 27 July, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced that the Foreign Secretary will take on the role of UK Governor to the World Bank, which provides around $100 billion in finance per year. In the announcement, the Foreign Secretary stated that in taking on this role, he wishes to send an unambiguous signal regarding this Government's commitment to global leadership on development and climate.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 15 July (HL1807), how many licence applications have been withdrawn in response to feedback from the Home Office Regulator during the assessment process, and whether there is a limit on the number of times an application may be revised and resubmitted.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

In 2024, eight project licence applications and, in 2025, six project licence applications were withdrawn by the applicant. The Regulator does not hold information on the reasons why those applications were withdrawn so cannot comment on whether they were withdrawn in response to regulatory feedback.

Amendments to project licence applications are a routine part of the assessment process, are based on discussions between the Regulator and the applicant and could be about any aspect of the licence. There is no limit to the number of revisions and resubmissions that can be made.

All applications are subject to multiple stages of review prior to submission to the Home Office, including the scrutiny by an establishment’s Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body and sign off by the establishment licence holder. A licence may only be granted where the application satisfies all relevant requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to implement their commitment to establish and publish a cross-government monitoring framework for Women, Peace and Security.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The Government is unwavering in its commitment to the Women, Peace and Security agenda and is in the process of refreshing the UK's fifth Women, Peace, and Security National Action Plan. The refresh will retain transparent and proportionate governance, monitoring and evaluation arrangements, ensuring transparency, accountability and effective measurement of progress and impact.

Found: Andrews Baroness Browning Baroness Cass Lord Dholakia Baroness Freeman of Steventon Baroness Hodgson of Abinger

Found: Andrews; Baroness Browning; Baroness Cass; Lord Dholakia; Baroness Freeman of Steventon; Baroness Hodgson of Abinger