Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, in regard to the project titled 'cortical and subcortical control of movement' in Non-technical summaries for project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act between January to March 2025 that require a retrospective assessment, published on 11 June, what assessment they have made of the expectation that over 95 per cent of non-human primates will experience some infection as a result of long-term implants used for purposes such as head fixation.

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

Each application to use animals in science is subject to a harm benefit assessment by a trained Home Office Inspector whom is a member of either the veterinary or medical profession. This ensures that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment.

All applications must conform with all legal requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This includes, applying the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement); the replacement of animals with alternatives, the reduction of the number of animals used to the minimum possible and the refinement of any techniques to reduce the harm suffered by the animals to the minimum. The Home Office only allows the use of animals if it can be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the harms and the 3Rs have been fully applied. All licence holders have a responsibility to fully implement the 3Rs and demonstrate this requirement at audit.

Licence holders are also required to complete retrospective assessments for licences if the protocols in the studies are severe. Retrospective assessments must consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the programme of work which may contribute to the further implementation of the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement.

The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) is engaging with stakeholders to finalise a strategy to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal testing which is scheduled for publication later this year.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, in regard to Non-technical summaries for project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act between January to March 2025 that require a retrospective assessment, published on 11 June, what assessment they have made of the practice of implanting electrodes in the reward centres of brains of non-human primates to motivate them to perform behavioural tasks.

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

Each application to use animals in science is subject to a harm benefit assessment by a trained Home Office Inspector whom is a member of either the veterinary or medical profession. This ensures that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment.

All applications must conform with all legal requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This includes, applying the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement); the replacement of animals with alternatives, the reduction of the number of animals used to the minimum possible and the refinement of any techniques to reduce the harm suffered by the animals to the minimum. The Home Office only allows the use of animals if it can be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the harms and the 3Rs have been fully applied. All licence holders have a responsibility to fully implement the 3Rs and demonstrate this requirement at audit.

Licence holders are also required to complete retrospective assessments for licences if the protocols in the studies are severe. Retrospective assessments must consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the programme of work which may contribute to the further implementation of the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement.

The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) is engaging with stakeholders to finalise a strategy to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal testing which is scheduled for publication later this year.

Found: New towns: practical delivery Thursday 17 July 2025 10 am Watch the meeting Members present: Lord Gascoigne

Found: LORD GASCOIGNE 308A★_ Clause 71, page 104, line 17, after “Natural England” insert “or another public

Found: Clause 58 LORD KREBS BARONESS PARMINTER LORD GASCOIGNE LORD WHITTY 266_ Clause 58, page 93, line

Found: BARONESS BOYCOTT LORD GASCOIGNE 502P_ After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— “Safe and

Found: BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE LORD GASCOIGNE BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER BARONESS WILLIS

Found: BARONESS BOYCOTT LORD GASCOIGNE 502P_ After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— “Safe and

Found: LORD GASCOIGNE LORD TEVERSON 138_ Clause 52, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “(d) supporting space

Found: LORD GASCOIGNE LORD TEVERSON 138_ Clause 52, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “(d) supporting space

Found: LORD GASCOIGNE LORD TEVERSON 138_ Clause 52, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “(d) supporting space

Found: BARONESS BOYCOTT LORD GASCOIGNE 502P_ After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— “Safe and

Found: Planning and Infrastructure Bill 42 LORD GASCOIGNE LORD TEVERSON 138_ Clause 52, page 73, line 13,

Found: Planning and Infrastructure Bill 60 LORD GASCOIGNE 138_ Clause 52, page 73, line 13, at end insert—

Found: Former: Lord Harlech, Lord Caine, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Roborough and Lord Gascoigne.