Protest Policing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.

The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.

Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.

In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.

Immigration Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Some time ago, there was a debate on fisheries in this Chamber. The Minister who replied for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she would meet those of us who represent fishing villages. There is a need for visas for fishing crews, and it will not cost this country any money to have them here, as they contribute to it. Will the Minister please agree to a meeting?

[Alex Norris]

Whether it is with me or the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, I will ensure that a meeting on fisheries takes place.

Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Over this Labour Government’s term in office so far, we have spent a lot of time discussing and highlighting the evils of child abuse and the exploitation of women and girls, and there has been a lot of progress. The audit from Baroness Casey on grooming gangs made several recommendations that we have already put into motion; the reforms that we are making to taxi licensing and safety through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill are a key example.

However, I want to open today’s debate by talking about an issue that I have previously discussed with the Minister: the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is one of the key recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I approach this issue as someone who grew up in a small religious organisation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which IICSA recognised as having a serious problem with child sexual abuse. Last June, I stood here and highlighted my concerns that the Government’s proposals to introduce mandatory reporting in the Crime and Policing Bill have been significantly watered down from IICSA’s recommendations. I raised three issues: first, a lack of proper sanctions for non-compliance; secondly, the fact that the duty proposed applies only when someone receives a direct disclosure or witnesses abuse happening, and not when they have strong reasons to suspect it; and thirdly, loopholes in who is included; under the drafting, it is religious leaders who have “unsupervised” contact with children who come under the duty to report. I set out why that would allow most lay religious leaders to escape the duty, despite their holding enormous power and influence over their followers, using the particular example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

To begin with, I do have some good news. Just a few hours ago, the House of Lords approved a Government amendment to remove the word “unsupervised” from that definition of religious leaders. I want to thank the Minister, as well as her Lords counterpart, Lord Hanson, for listening to my lobbying on that front. That small change could make a real difference in protecting children from abuse in small religious organisations, but it will make the most difference only if we fix the other two issues, on which there has not been as much progress. I will not rehash my arguments in detail about why they are so critical.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He spoke on this issue some time ago, and made a very good case. I support him in the case that he is putting forward, and I want to give him an illustration. A 2013 report by the Northern Ireland Assembly revealed that small, unaffiliated groups, including those that use church or faith premises, had gaps in child protection and safeguarding, and might not be subject to credential checks. Does he agree with me—I believe he does—that legislation and guidance must be brought up to date and strengthened to ensure that smaller organisations do not fall through the gaps when it comes to ensuring proper safeguarding, so that we can increase protections for all children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He deserves to be congratulated on what he is doing tonight.

[Sam Carling]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It sounds like really helpful evidence and a really good example, and I will certainly go away and have a look at it.

I will not rehash the arguments I made in June, but I will say that IICSA was clear, having examined the issue in huge depth over many years, that both strong sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion were essential to create a duty that works, and its views have not changed. On Friday, two of the four IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary, pressing for the duty in the Crime and Policing Bill to be strengthened, so that it complies with their original recommendations.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

My sympathy goes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. These changes make a more secure border. They mean that we can check whether foreign criminals are coming into the country, and if they are, we can stop them, which makes us all safer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. As always, these problems have resulted because of a realisation that the small print does not really work. Many of my constituents take flights from Dublin because they can be more cost-effective, but the need to have a British passport can be incredibly cost-prohibitive. I am trying to be helpful and positive, so will the Minister and the Home Office give consideration to providing for an ID card that could be accessed online, on production of a birth certificate, and could be provided free of charge, or at a minimal cost?

[Mike Tapp]

We are modernising across the board. I will not make any new announcements in response to this urgent question, but the modernisation of the border includes digitisation, which will impact all of us positively.

Firearms Licensing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I approached you beforehand to tell you that, unfortunately, I cannot be here at the end of the debate because of a Select Committee, so I apologise to the Minister. That is a genuine shame, because this has been one of the most productive and thoughtful Westminster Hall petition debates I have had the pleasure to be involved in during my short time as a Member of Parliament. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the thoughtful way in which he opened the debate, covering a wide range of the issues we want to put before the Government.

I recognise that the debate comes in the context of some terrible tragedies, including one in Plymouth several years ago, as well as those in Skye and elsewhere. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to tight gun controls; in fact, I am very in favour of them, and one of the great strengths of our country, when we compare ourselves with other developed nations, is how we approach gun control. Our thoughts are absolutely with those affected by these tragedies, but I would be grateful if the Government at least provided an exemption for farmers, and possibly others, from the merging of section 1 and 2 licences, if it does go ahead.

Some 483 of my constituents signed the petition, and my North Northumberland constituency contains at least 800 farms, with probably well over 1,000 people working in or around agriculture. A number of them have contacted me about the consultation and the changes to firearms licensing that have been floated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a member of the BASC and Countryside Alliance Ireland, and I have had the opportunity to shoot on certain occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is little evidence that merging sections 1 and 2 will improve public safety? Indeed, it will do the contrary. For land managers, pest controllers, farmers and gamekeepers, a shotgun and a rifle are the tools of their jobs. If the Government pursue this policy in any way whatever, it will reduce the proven economic, employment, environmental and social benefits currently available to us.

[David Smith]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said earlier, we need must base our decisions on evidence. That is why I welcome the fact that there is a consultation, but it should be a genuine consultation on the facts of the matter.

Speaking of facts, I would expect every farmer in my constituency to own at least one shotgun, and that goes for all farmers and agricultural workers across the United Kingdom, of whom there may be up to 300,000. For all of them, as we have heard, shotguns are not a pastime but a necessary tool of their trade, much like a stethoscope, a power drill or a laptop. Farmers are responsible and sober shotgun owners because they are professionals. They know the damage that firearms can deliver, because they are required to use them so that we can eat our food.

There is no evidence base to suggest that it is farmers or agricultural workers whom we need to be worried about. Impositions on farmers will not make us safer; they will just make people worse farmers, because they will spend more time securing the tools they need in order to do their job than doing it. Fundamentally, if we want food, they need shotguns.

Incidentally, it should be no surprise that Northumbria police are the second worst police service in the country for firearm licensing processing times, because their remit covers thousands of farms. I have been assured by them that they are working on the situation, but there is a compelling case for the standardisation of firearms licensing, as we have heard, and I welcome that element being part of the proposed changes.

There are a number of ways to secure an exemption, if that was how we wanted to do it, and to differentiate farmers and agricultural workers—those who need these tools of the trade to do their jobs. That could, for instance, include retaining section 2 for pest control; that could be the categorisation. Or we could simply keep section 2 for those who are clearly working as farmers and agricultural workers. Police forces are clever enough to make a common-sense call on whether an individual is a farmer—usually the tractor gives it away. Alternatively, other policy events have shown the need for a central register of active farmers. Increasingly, we need to distinguish who our farmers are.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne]

I absolutely agree. We should be doing work to improve what we already have; we do not need a radical change. I question whether taking action that would overwhelm licensing units would actually enhance public safety. Can we seriously expect people to wait years for a licence? We run the risk of turbocharging the black-market demand for guns.

Shooting contributes billions of pounds to the UK and supports tens of thousands of jobs. It underpins conservation work, supports game meat production, sustains rural tourism and hospitality, and provides income in areas where alternative economic activity can be limited. Setting higher barriers to certification will lead to lower participation. The proposed change would be the most significant since 1988, and, according to some estimates, could mean a reduction in the number of licence holders of up to a third. That would be difficult to absorb for farm businesses that are already dealing with rising costs.

We should also bear in mind that the legal test of whether someone is fit to possess a firearm is the same, whether under section 1 or section 2. The background checks, character assessments and medical requirements are already rigorous, and recent reforms have aligned referee requirements. If the objective is public safety, as it should be, we should focus on improvements that would make the most difference—for example, introducing medical markers and consistent medical engagement. During a previous debate in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out a more effective approach to identifying vulnerable or potentially dangerous individuals.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, we already have strict medical controls. Those work, and that is because of the participation of shooting organisations and individuals. Perhaps when the Minister is summing up, she could consider taking a glimpse at what is done in Northern Ireland, as that might be a way forward.

[John Milne]

I think a trip to Northern Ireland is on offer to the Minister, and I am sure that she would have an excellent host in the hon. Gentleman.

Police Grant Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.

Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:

“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”

I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.

In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.

Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.

For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

Town and City Centre Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate and giving us all a chance to participate.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on town and city centre safety. Northern Ireland has several specific Government-led and multi-agency initiatives designed to improve safety in town and city centres. They are often co-ordinated through local partnerships, such as the PCSP—police and community safety partnership. However, as with most Departments, lack of funding in Northern Ireland has greatly hampered the progress in safety that they need. For example, CCTV —the sleeping policeman, as I call it—in Newtownards and Bangor is not fit for purpose. It needs upgrading: the screen and film is very grainy, so it is hard to ascertain who is on it. The local Police Service of Northern Ireland chief superintendent is crying out for a system that can be used as evidence for crimes, but more importantly one that can prevent crimes. The local PCSP have acknowledged the need, and yet the council’s hands are ostensibly tied, having struck the local rate.

We then go up the ladder to the Minister for Justice.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the potential for a win-win here? Many people complain about high street shops being derelict and empty, but if we can encourage people to live adjacent to or above retail units, we can increase footfall and protect people, provided the police are present, particularly in the evening time.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is not just about CCTV in the city centre, but in the shops as well. The Minister and the Department have highlighted that their funding does not stretch. I could argue that the Minister does not prioritise in the way that I would like, but that does not change the facts. The PSNI has indicated that if it had the system, it would monitor it. In other words, if the system is in place, the PSNI will look after it, so there is an advantage to doing that.

I have one quick story— I am conscious of time and want to give others the chance to participate. My son worked in a shop in Newtownards—he does not work there any more. One night, a guy came in to rob the till and steal some drink. He threatened my son with a knife, so my son stepped back, which was the right thing to do—there is no sense in being a hero when it comes to some maniac with a knife. The CCTV in the shop was the reason they were able to catch them, so it is just not about CCTV in the street, but the CCTV in the constituency shops as well.

The rate of crime in Newtownards is 33.6 crimes per 1,000 people compared with 36 elsewhere. The PSNI find themselves going from business to business to ask for camera evidence, and even to ask residents for Ring doorbell footage. That is another way of catching those who are up to no good, and is something we need to focus on.

Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree; that is the point that I am trying to draw out.

There were 2,646 procedures on dogs and 1,936 on non-human primates. Examples include non-human primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery and deprived of fluid to induce them to perform behavioural tasks and mice being given psychostimulant rewards such as cocaine or amphetamines—and this, under licence conditions. However, the ASRU report highlighted instances in which compliance with these licence conditions was not followed; there have been failures to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, which are the most basic welfare needs of animals being held in laboratories across the UK.

In one very distressing incident, it is reported that a mother was removed from its cage and killed, resulting in unweaned pups starving to death. In 2024, there were 146 cases of non-compliance in British laboratories, a 16% decrease from the 169 cases reported in 2023.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for rightly bringing us this debate. He is right to say that many people are concerned. Between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of animal welfare convictions in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence. Councils and enforcement bodies need greater funding to gather evidence, because evidence is critical for successful prosecutions. Does he agree that one takeaway from the report he refers to is that we can and should do more to protect animal welfare where possible, and the Government need to raise the priority for it?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree, although the hon. Member is addressing the wider issue of animal welfare, while my focus today is on this report. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right.

I was talking about non-compliance. The cases involved more than 22,000 animals, including mice, rats, fish, cows, sheep, frogs, guinea pigs, bats, dogs, non-human primates, cats, a hamster and a rabbit. I might add that those are the reported incidents; 68 establishment audits were conducted for the report but only 3% of cases of non-compliance were identified by audits and 69% were self-reported. That can hardly be described as a robust inspection system. In 75% of cases—three quarters—the only sanction was “inspector advice”.

The ASRU is responsible for licensing animal experiments in the UK, to protect animals in science and ensure compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That means following the principles known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. In other words, use non-animal methods where possible, reduce the number used to a minimum and refine procedures to minimise suffering. I know from visits undertaken by the APPG, which I referred to earlier, that there is a growing use of laboratory-grown human tissue in experimentation, which we need to support as parliamentarians.

The UK Government have stated:

“The Home Office is in the final stages of delivering a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform to further strengthen the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), ensuring confidence in the regulatory system and maintaining robust compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.”

Those reforms include increasing the number of full-time inspectors by March this year, but I would argue that that internal reform does not go far enough. The incidence of non-compliance shows that increasing the number of inspectors alone may not result in meaningful change.

I mentioned that 2.64 million procedures are taking place each year. We cannot rely solely on a few more full-time inspectors to turn the situation around; I note that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying. Labour’s publication last November of its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to the use of animals in science is very welcome, but meaningful change will not occur without a series of more robust measures.

I believe that the difficulty is that the UK is in danger of falling behind other international partners—in the European Union and, interestingly, in the US, which is speeding forward within three to five years to remove the requirement for animals to be used in research. It is strange that we appear to be falling behind internationally in this instance. Although the strategy is committed to increasing funding for human-specific technologies, founding a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and setting up a cross-Government ministerial Committee to oversee implementation, it contains no timeline for phasing out all animal experiments.

We on the APPG on phasing out animal experiments have discussed implementing Herbie’s law as a practical pathway to phase out animal testing, in collaboration with the scientific community. Legal experts have prepared a draft of Herbie’s law, entitled the human-specific technologies bill, describing how Government could ensure progress and how scientists could be supported, with detail on setting up an expert advisory committee to give specialist advice on animal replacement. I think I speak for many attending the debate when I say that we are keen to see an end to animal suffering in medical research.

The ASRU report’s findings are a stark reminder of what is at stake for animals when the law is broken, when licence conditions are not followed or when measures to ensure compliance are not as robust as they could be. The UK has an opportunity not only to secure our position as a global leader in animal protection and scientific innovation, but to end animal suffering in scientific research. That can be ensured only through a full transition from animal experimentation across the next decade. The ASRU report is a stark reminder that until that transition is in place, we will continue to fail animals in laboratories across the UK.

Animal Testing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michael Wheeler]

Of course. It will surprise my hon. Friend not at all that I agree. I will come to the wider context and wider solutions, but at this time, although we can look to improve the situation, we must absolutely look to make sure that current regulations are enforced as we speak, and not let slide, because there have been hundreds of animals whose suffering breached the current legal framework and should have been prevented.

Some of the most disturbing incidents involve something as basic as access to food and water. In 2024, there were nine separate cases in which animals were not provided with adequate food or hydration, and 24 animals died as a result. In another case, a mother was removed from her cage and killed, leaving seven unweaned pups to starve to death. The report catalogues a litany of serious failures. Animals were reused, in second experiments, without proper authorisation. Others were kept alive past what most people would consider a humane end point. They were left to suffer as tumours grew too large, or body weight fell dangerously low. In one case, misidentification of sex led to regulated procedures being performed on seven pregnant mice.

The failures affect a wide range of animals. Primates suffered injuries from faulty equipment, had tails trapped in cage doors or were left without food overnight. A freedom of information request revealed that in one case an incident deemed by ASRU to be a “minor breach” involved a dog being kept alive despite having suffered severe swelling of the parotid salivary glands as a result of the procedures that it had been through, before eventually being euthanised.

Given the gravity of the incidents, we should expect robust enforcement. Instead, we see a regulatory regime that is alarmingly weak. In three quarters of non-compliance cases, the only response was “inspector advice”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He is bringing forward some very harrowing stories, and they are certainly hard to accept. Non-compliance with animal welfare laws on farms in Northern Ireland was detected in more than 21% of those inspected. It is clear that welfare inspection is the key to making them acknowledge the regulations and to ensuring that they do what they should be doing. Does the hon. Member agree that non-compliance is best detected through inspection and that there must be more focus on inspection rates, to ensure that issues can be dealt with?

[Michael Wheeler]

I of course agree, and I have some information that will illustrate the point and the importance of inspections. In 2024, just 68 establishments were audited across Great Britain. Only 10 of the inspections were unannounced. That represents just 15% of inspections, which is down from 63% of inspections in 2018. The issue is further exacerbated by some elements of those audits being carried out remotely. Nearly 70% of non-compliance incidents were self-reported, which raises a troubling question about how much more is going undetected in the absence of regular, independent spot checks.

ASRU’s current regime of regulatory reform includes increasing the number of inspectors by March to 22 full-time equivalents, up from 14.5, but incremental tweaks to oversight will not solve the underlying problem. In 2024 alone, 2.64 million scientific procedures were carried out on animals. That scale of activity cannot be meaningfully overseen through marginal staffing increases.

The wider issue is that we continue to allow legally sanctioned animal suffering. For instance, some licences permit deliberate deprivation. Primates’ entire daily food intake can be restricted so that food can be used as a reward for correct task performance during sessions lasting up to six hours. Rats, meanwhile, can go without water for up to 22 hours a day, over a week, to encourage them to consume liquids containing potentially aversive substances. Thousands of procedures still rely on controversial tests such as LD50 toxicity testing and the forced swim test—an outdated model that the Government acknowledge has limited scientific value. Licence summaries reveal the severity of authorised suffering: thousands of animals undergo painful procedures without analgesia because pain relief might interfere with the results.

Equally concerning is the failure to uphold the core legal principle at the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 2A is clear that scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods must be used wherever possible, yet an expert report commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research identified a “system-wide failure” to replace animals where alternatives already exist. Home Office summaries show that licences have been granted even when non-animal methods are clearly available. In one example, animals were being used as an intermediary step in heart disease research, despite well-known anatomical differences that limit the relevance of that research to humans.

It is time for us to find another way. More than 92% of drugs that succeed in animal tests do not end up being used by patients. That is primarily due to poor efficacy and safety issues that were not predicted by animal testing. We are now at the point where human-specific technologies, using human cells, tissues, artificial intelligence and advanced modelling, offer faster, safer and more relevant results. Pioneering work projects have been taking place for decades, leading to breakthroughs such as mini-hearts that accurately model human cardiac disease without harming animals.