Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for jumping on something I have said and holding me to account for it, which is very good. We had a similar debate to this one last week or the week before, and what came out of it—I will come on to this—was an understanding that the regulator is going through a period of reform and increasing capacity. Good things are happening in that space, but there is concern among MPs that that is not going fast or widely enough.

In the last debate, I suggested that we should meet as a group of MPs with the regulator, have these conversations and try to flush out some of the things that MPs are concerned about. The MPs who were taking part in that debate had not had the opportunity to have those conversations with the regulator, so I took back as an action that we should sit collectively and have that conversation, which I am happy to do. The reason I am not directly giving my hon. Friend the immediate response that he is asking for in terms of changing the statutory responsibility of the regulator is just because it does not sit within my remit. I want to make sure that hon. Members are satisfied that we are going as fast and as far as we can, and perhaps a meeting with the regulator would be useful on that front.

The reform that I had begun to talk about, which is overseen by my noble Friend Lord Hanson in the other place and was agreed last year, has involved an increase. Members have rightly said, “Are there enough people focused on doing this work?” We have seen an increase in inspectors from an average of 14.5 full-time equivalents in 2023 to 22 by March 2026. By expanding its capabilities, it is able to do more; the conversation that we would want to have with the regulator is about whether it is satisfied that is enough, or whether it thinks we need to go further.

The two-pronged approach of this Government is, first, to phase out the use of animal testing. I pay tribute to the campaigners pushing for Herbie’s law and I absolutely understand the need for pace and for us to be held to account to go as fast as we can. The strategy to phase out the use of animals, alongside a beefed-up regulator, is the response that this Government are taking. We want to maintain public confidence in our animal testing processes and in our research. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said—I have now quoted her three times; I need to stop quoting her so much—we do need to make sure that the life sciences industry, which is important for this country, is not pushing animal testing abroad and that we maintain our standards here.

I heard the message from Members about the fear that we might fall behind our European Union and US colleagues in this space. I am very interested in working across Government with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Lord Vallance, who are leading on the phasing out of animal research work, to push as hard as we can and look abroad. I will take that back as another action and speak to my colleague Lord Vallance—I suspect hon. Members already have—to make sure that we are learning the lessons from other countries and not falling behind; that, in fact, we are keeping pace.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt have highlighted the work of the Government. I know the Government are committed to phasing out animal testing, but the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report highlights the horrors that we unfortunately have in the system. Does she not agree that we need to work at pace to ensure that alternative methods are explored and implemented?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.

The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.

My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.

[Tony Vaughan]

I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.

Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I did actually say in my statement that, as outlined in Baroness Casey’s review, the inquiry should take around two to three years and be time-sensitive. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in order to make sure that we are doing this right, we will shortly be providing an update on the chair of the inquiry. I gently remind him of the two years it took to find a chair for the child sex abuse inquiry—two years and three failed attempts. I do not want to do that to people this time, so that is why we are taking the time.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

We all want to see an end to grooming gangs, and justice for victims and survivors, because exploiting the most vulnerable is about as despicable and heinous as it gets. We all know that perpetrators come from different backgrounds and communities, but certain politically motivated individuals are trying to blame particular communities, which is why they try to gloss over that fact in their effort to sow division and discord. We certainly cannot be politically correct about this either, because no one, regardless of race or religion, is above the law. We cannot allow such an important issue to be treated like a sectarian political football by those who seek to sow division. Can my hon. Friend the Minister outline what the Government will do to root out this evil with this second national inquiry? How will it remain focused on victims and survivors, and how will she ensure that this debate is conducted in a sensible, sensitive manner?

[Jess Phillips]

I stand here as a vessel of the victims who have spoken to me. They have not necessarily used the word “sectarian”, but they hate this issue being used as a political football. Baroness Casey, in the media that she did post releasing her report, said the same: she felt that politics was not meeting the moment in some of the responses. We have got to do better, and the very first thing that I would say is that I welcome the involvement and look forward to the engagement on the terms of reference, which will be published for consultation with every single Member of this House, regardless of what they might have said before or whether we might have fallen out on other occasions. I welcome the inquiry, and I want to make sure that we show the very best of this place, because that is the least that victims deserve.