Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Redfern Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.

I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.

Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.

When this SI was laid, I contacted the Royal Society of Biology for its advice. I should declare an interest, because I worked for the Royal Society of Biology before I was elected to this House. The society confirms that, as my noble friend has set out, this statutory instrument is essentially a tidying-up of the existing standards. It represents a change that will help the sector to propose improvements in practice and for the regulator to accept them and help to embed them as expected standards across the research community. The SI is related to minor amendments to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, such as mandatory standards of care and housing, et cetera. These amendments themselves largely relate, as my noble friend has said, to removing references to the EU, which are no longer valid, as well as a few minor clarifications.

The amendments relate to the first two-thirds of the code of practice. The final third of the code of practice, which relates to non-mandatory guidance and leading practice, has been removed, as the Home Office will be revising this more heavily at a later date —my noble friend may be able to confirm this—and will take into account advice given by the Animals in Science Committee on strengthening leading practice. This part will now exist as a stand-alone resource. The real point that I want to make is that the benefit of this is that it can be updated more quickly than if it remains part of the mandatory code of practice and should help more effectively to embed emerging improvements and practices across the sector. On this basis, I hope that this statutory instrument will commend itself to the Committee.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will speak briefly to the statutory instrument. These draft regulations must ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively and they make technical amendments relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. It is only correct to have strong scrutiny where the welfare of animals is concerned. I for one hope that the Government are fully committed to meeting those targets set for 2030 to emphasise the fact that this must and should include progress reporting, set with clear time scales of action leading towards supporting a transition away from animal use in science and absolutely to maintain our current standard, as well as to be in line with the post-EU governance. Any procedural changes must require primary legislation.

These technical changes around transparency and oversight are in line with maintaining UK standards and benchmarks, following the removal of the EU references. Assurances are required, though, on how they will operate in practice, whether the amendments fully preserve the existing protections and reporting requirements and how the key provisions will be updated over time. Above all, every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals and, again, to acknowledge that further steps are required to reduce the use of animals in research.

Lastly, I ask the Minister: what mechanism will replace EU-level comparators and oversight? Will the provision translate into improved public accountability and transparency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.

I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?

At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?

There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?

Lastly, I understand that the target is that there will be a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates in such experiments by 2030. Is that still the case? Are we on course to achieve that?

I put on record that I think that we have reached the right balance here on what can be perceived as a very vexatious issue. I congratulate the department and the Home Office on bringing these regulations forward.