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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Viscount Stansgate

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.

I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Alongside the Act, animal welfare standards are supported by the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence, and these regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework so that the same high standards continue to apply.

I am very much aware that the use of animals in science attracts significant public interest and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision where animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. As noble Lords will know, in November 2025 we published the replacing animals in science strategy, backed by £75 million of investment, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. The strategy includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, create a preclinical translational models hub and expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.

At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system.

This is exactly what these regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when it is truly necessary. These regulations provide legal clarity following EU exit to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. I therefore commend this SI to the 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.

Government Website: Registering a Death

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Viscount Stansgate

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are two points here. The median figure that we have assessed for the issues that the noble Lord has raised is nine days. The published data does not break down the journey between the medical certificate of death and the registration of death. From the Home Office’s perspective, the registration process is more or less on target at the five-day period. Where there is a delay on occasions, it is between death occurring and the medical examiner’s certificate being issued. I will be drawing that issue to the attention of my noble friend Lady Merron, as it is a Department of Health matter. Again, the Government are committed to trying to resolve and improve performance on this.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, on 3 April last year, from the Dispatch Box in this Chamber, my noble friend Lady Merron said:

“We are taking steps to reduce the time to register a death”.—[Official Report, 3/4/25; col. 361.]


Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what progress is being made?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said, nine days is the median. I confess to the House that death certificates are not my specialist subject, but I will do my best to investigate whether there are any delays and will write to my noble friend.

National Police Service

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Viscount Stansgate

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The national police force aims to look at what regional organised crime units do on procurement and how we buy things for police services, on IT, on forensics—which I know is of interest to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—and on how we deal with strategy across the board. It will make a difference to improving crime outcomes.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I draw my noble friend’s attention to the appalling state of forensic science in this country, ever since the abolition of the Forensic Science Service a decade ago. Is he aware that the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I have been a member, is about to produce a report about the rebuilding of forensic science? Can my noble friend and the Government take advantage of the opportunity of this White Paper, which I support, to make real progress, save the forensic science service in this country and rebuild it on a national basis in a way that has not proved possible so far?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

When I was last Police Minister, in 2009-10, I rejected the proposal to privatise forensic science services, and I am pleased I did so. The Conservative Government then privatised forensic sciences and they have not been at the level of service that I would wish to see in the future. In the strategic plan we have now, we intend to bring forensic sciences under the remit of the national police service. We will look at the organisation of that and how it works, but I am of the view that forensic science is key to fighting crime, it needs to be dealt with nationally and it needs to be under strong policing and political management from the centre.

National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Viscount Stansgate

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

On the subject of exceptions, in Regulation 6 of the statutory instrument on publication, for example, how is Parliament going to know the extent of the exemptions that have been granted? On the face of it, we will not know.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If my noble friend allows me a moment’s reflection on that detail, I will respond to him with a fuller, meaningful reply. I believe that we are going to be transparent in all of this. The whole purpose of these regulations is to provide transparency and ensure that we tackle national security and give proportionate responses. Colleagues and I will reflect on the point he has made and I will respond to him in detail if I can.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Viscount Stansgate

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The FIRS we announced yesterday includes the leadership of Russia, political parties that support the leadership of Russia and a number of other state apparatuses, including the security services in Russia. We have and we will, in due course, present to this House and the House of Commons a statutory instrument that sets out in detail the applicability of the FIRS. I hope that my noble friend can wait for that to see the detail of the specific organisations and individuals named under it.

In informing him of that, I also pay tribute to him and his work with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is done behind the scenes and appears only when reports such as the Russia report are published. I know, from spending four and a half years on that committee, that there is a tremendous amount of work going on under the surface all the time to both challenge the security services, Government Ministers and agencies on their performance on security and to make the sorts of recommendations that appeared in the Russia report to date.

I am pleased that my noble friend supports the Government’s position not to seek the publication of the unredacted report. For the reasons he has mentioned, this is about national security, and it is also about themes: The themes of the Russia report were that the Russian state was seeking to undermine UK democracy and be a malevolent actor and, as we have seen in Salisbury and in Ukraine since the Russia report, it is not a player on the international stage that abides by the rules. In producing that report, we have to withhold some aspects. It is welcome that my noble friend supports the Government’s approach to that issue.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I broadly welcome it, and I think there is a broad, cross-party consensus on the national security requirements.

When I hear my noble friend talk about threats from Iran and Russia, as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy I can tell him that we looked in great detail at the nature of some of these threats—for example, in regard to ransomware—and produced a report on it.

The question I wanted to ask my noble friend relates to the political tier. I quote from the Statement:

“For the first time, Members of this House will now be able to check whether anyone who seeks to influence them is doing so at the direction of a foreign power”.


I wanted to raise the issue of all-party parliamentary groups, because one of the concerns that has been expressed over the years is that they could be a vehicle for unwanted influences—certainly financially—buying their way in and influencing the way all-party groups operate.

I am the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is the Parliament’s oldest all-parliamentary party group. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that this scheme will enable it to be absolutely clear that no all-party parliamentary group that operates in this House—or in Parliament generally—is in any way open to the type of foreign influence that this Statement is designed to prevent and that as a result Parliament can have confidence that all-party parliamentary groups will be protected under this scheme to some extent by the work being undertaken, and that when FIRS goes live, we will have this confidence open to view.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his work in this field and for his question. Where the scheme will be of best benefit is that it will allow greater transparency around individuals who may be influenced, in this case by Russia or, as in the previous announcement, by Iran. That gives confidence to parliamentarians particularly. Any individual who is engaged with or supporting an all-party group, in whatever shape and form they do that, will have had to make a declaration about foreign influence before they participate in any activity as a whole. After 1 July, that will be a public matter of record. If they do not declare it and are subsequently found to have such influence, they will be subject to severe penalty, tested by the police, the CPS and the court, and ultimately subject to penalties of potential long terms of imprisonment of up to five years. I hope that will bring a transparency and confidence to all-party groups in the event of individuals believing that such groups are somehow influenced or fronted by organisations which are seeking to do malevolent damage to the UK. It gives transparency and flushes that out. If anybody tries to do that in a secretive way and is found to be doing so, they will face a severe penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I apologise if I slightly overlooked part of the noble Lord’s question. The Government have not made a judgment on any ISC comment or recommendations. However, we are continually keeping under review every nation in relation to a potential FIRS. We have announced Iran. Yesterday, we announced Russia. All other potential designations are kept under constant review. On China, as I have said in the House before, we co-operate where we can, we challenge where we need to and we ensure that we maintain our national security interests. We will keep that under review, but I cannot give the noble Lord a running commentary on potential FIRS designations. They are not a matter for today, which is about Russia and recommitting to the FIRS declaration on Iran.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will forgive me for a quick follow-up question, the Minister referred to sector guidance. Will he issue sector guidance relating to Parliament itself?