Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Animals in Science Regulation Unit Annual Report 2024, published in December 2025, what assessment they have made of the two incidents in which live animals were found to have been accidentally put into waste bags; whether they have considered the adequacy of 'letters of reprimand' being issued as a sanction in response; and what actions they will be taking to prevent such incidents from taking place in future.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
All licensed establishments must fully uphold the required standards for animal welfare as set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) and the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) conducts audits to assure establishments’ compliance and takes matters of non-compliance very seriously.
Regarding the incidents referenced, ASRU investigated the incidents and acted according to the published compliance framework (www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-testing-and-research-compliance-with-aspa) which explains how ASRU identifies and investigates potential incidents of non-compliance and decides on appropriate and proportionate measures and remedies where non-compliance has been found to occur. Through delivery of the compliance policy the Regulator aims to reduce the risk of future non-compliance.
All cases of non-compliance are thoroughly investigated, and the outcomes are published in ASRU’s annual report.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Animals in Science Regulation Unit Annual Report 2024, published in December 2025, what assessment they have made of the incident in which 26 mice were found to have drowned when their cage flooded overnight due to a leaking water valve; whether they have considered the adequacy of a 'letter of reprimand' being issued as a sanction in response; and what actions they will be taking to prevent animals who are being kept for the purpose of scientific experiments from drowning in future.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
All licensed establishments must fully uphold the required standards for animal welfare as set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) and the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) conducts audits to assure establishments’ compliance and takes matters of non-compliance very seriously.
Regarding the incidents referenced, ASRU investigated the incidents and acted according to the published compliance framework (www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-testing-and-research-compliance-with-aspa) which explains how ASRU identifies and investigates potential incidents of non-compliance and decides on appropriate and proportionate measures and remedies where non-compliance has been found to occur. Through delivery of the compliance policy the Regulator aims to reduce the risk of future non-compliance.
All cases of non-compliance are thoroughly investigated, and the outcomes are published in ASRU’s annual report.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to prevent the use of Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories as safe havens for ultra-high net worth individuals with significant political exposure; and how they are enforcing any preventative efforts.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
Corruption and illicit finance undermine effective governance in the UK and penalise legitimate UK businesses overseas.
While the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are distinct, largely self-governing jurisdictions with elected governments responsible for their own domestic affairs, the UK Government is committed to working with these international financial centres to tackle corruption and prevent money laundering.
The Home Office and the Foreign Office work with the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories to help strengthen their approaches to beneficial ownership transparency. The Government’s ultimate expectation remains the introduction of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership registers; however, the steps they are taking to implement legitimate interest access to their registers are welcome. Minister Doughty recently met with the Overseas Territories at the Joint Ministerial Council; the communique, which was published on November 28 2025, outlines the Overseas Territories’ progress.
This remains a priority for the UK government, reflected in a commitment within the recently published 2025 Anti-Corruption Strategy to strengthen beneficial ownership transparency across the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.
The UK also supports the Crown Dependencies and all Overseas Territories with financial centres commitment to uphold international tax standards, including the tax transparency framework and the BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Framework.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, regarding Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, published on 11 November, what approach they plan to take to granting licences for (1) pharmacopoeial pyrogen testing, (2) pharmacopoeial adventitious agent testing, (3) skin irritation testing, (4) eye irritation testing, (5) skin sensitisation testing, (6) fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals registered under UK Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, and (7) other tests not listed in the 'baskets'.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office regulates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) to assure compliance with the robust protections afforded to animals used in science. Licences for animal testing are only granted when applicants demonstrate compliance with the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs). This means, animals may only be used where there is no non-animal alternative, the number of animals is minimised, and the most refined methods of testing are used to minimise harms.
On 11 November 2025, the government published “Replacing animals in science: a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”. This strategy sets out a timeline to phase out specific animal tests including those referenced in the question.
Of these, tests 1-5 are in Basket 1 (where mature replacement technologies exist), and test 6 is in Basket 2 (where alternatives could be developed in the medium term). The strategy provides details on each of these tests. The government is committed to supporting the development and adoption of alternative methods for other tests wherever possible.
Until these deadlines are reached, the Home Office will continue to apply the same rigorous licensing framework to all project licence applications proposing these tests, ensuring animals are only used where no validated non-animal alternative exists.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the number of women identified as "pregnant from Ireland" who were forcibly returned from Britain to Ireland in the 20th century and what plans they have to offer recompense to those affected.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Irish Government is implementing a redress scheme which provides compensation to survivors of historical wrongs in Ireland. The Department for Work and Pensions is considering how to legislate so that UK residents who receive this compensation do not have their benefits affected. The ongoing legalisation the PQ is in relation to is Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill
The Home Office has, to the best of its knowledge, confirmed that it does not hold the information requested.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, pursuant to the non-technical summaries of project licences granted Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between January and March, what assessment they have made of the deliberate induction of pain on primates using methods such as heat, high intensity electrical stimulation or the injection of small amounts of high-strength salt solution; and what steps they plan to take to prohibit the use of such practices.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The legal framework in the UK is set up to ensure that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to that needed to achieve the scientific benefit.
Any application must take into account 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 (known as the 3Rs). All project licence applications are reviewed by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit to ensure that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment. 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.
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.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, pursuant to the non-technical summaries of project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between January and March, what assessment they have made of the restriction of primates' access to food in order to induce them to perform behavioural tasks.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The legal framework in the UK is set up to ensure that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to that needed to achieve the scientific benefit.
Any application must take into account 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 (known as the 3Rs). All project licence applications are reviewed by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit to ensure that any harm that may be caused to the animals is justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment. 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.
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.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to maintain the British National (Overseas) (BNO) visa route that offers a pathway to British citizenship for BNO passport holders and their dependents on the basis that a holder can apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years and citizenship after one further year.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government is committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK and those who may come here in future.
Further details of all measures announced in the Immigration White Paper will be set out in the normal way in due course, and where necessary, will be subject to consultation.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees for healthcare, including mental healthcare; and what assessment they have made of enabling asylum seekers with relevant qualifications and cultural knowledge to provide such care.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office keeps all aspects of the immigration system under regular review, in consultation with a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
Asked by: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many Afghan women who have applied for asylum in the UK since the fall of Kabul in 2021 have been denied that status; and what provision they are making for such women and their families.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office publishes data on asylum claims and initial decisions by nationality in tables Asy_D01 and Asy_D02 of the 'Immigration System Statistics Quarterly Release' on GOV.UK. The latest data relates to 2024. Data for the year ending March 2025 will be published on 22 May 2025.
In 2021 Q3 to 2024 Q4, there have been 137 refusals at initial decision to adult Afghan women, of which 44 were to main applicants and 93 to dependants.