Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the almost 235,000 signatories to this petition, including 670 from my constituency of Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The number of signatories to the petition and the speed at which they were collected demonstrate the strength of feeling on the issue. It is just over a year since the previous debates on this topic. At the start of my speech, I must declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—and, since we are all pitching for our various hounds, as the owner of the best-looking dog. She is the winner of several “best rescue” rosettes—I think that puts that discussion to bed.

The use of dogs and other animals in scientific and regulatory procedures has long been a controversial and emotive topic. It is a topic in which I have a closer interest than I may like, and more of an interest than most Members of this House need to. My constituency of Huntingdon has long been ground zero for much of the conversation around this practice. It has two sites involved in pharmaceutical research and animal testing: Labcorp’s pharmaceutical testing facility and Marshal BioResources’s beagle breeding facility, which is known as MBR Acres. As such, I speak on this subject with some first-hand experience of its sensitivity.

Only this weekend, there was a large demonstration of several hundred people outside the MBR Acres beagle breeding facility. I visited LabCorp last summer, so I have seen at first hand the lab conditions, the dogs in their pens and how they are looked after. It is very sanitised, as one might expect. I did not witness any of the experiments taking place, but it is a difficult thing to see the dogs held in those areas, knowing what awaits them in the testing process.

While this debate is about dogs, they sit within a hierarchy. Pigs are at the bottom, then come dogs, and above them sit primates. It is notable that no one has spoken about the use of primates in testing, but it is worth mentioning because, having visited that facility, I have seen the macaques that are used for testing above dogs in rarer circumstances, and the way that they come over, climb on the fences and look one in the eyes. The similarity between humans and primates makes it even more difficult to look at them than at the dogs.

I would like to make clear that I do not support animal testing for human medication—hence my APPG membership—but recognise that it is, at present, still a crucial milestone that regrettably will have a place in the pre-clinical testing process until there has been sufficient advancement in non-animal methods that such practices are no longer required across the board. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we would like to see a world in which animal testing for human medication is no longer needed. That is also the view of many that we have spoken to who are involved in the testing.

Animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Animals can therefore be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. The Opposition fully support the Act and its full enforcement.

The previous Government invested heavily funding for the three Rs: replacement of the use of animals in research where that is not necessary, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved. Via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, or NC3Rs, the previous Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council supports research that aims to develop and apply innovative methods for studying human and animal physiology, including in-silica approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems.

Last year, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced a doubling of annual funding to £20 million. He also announced that the then Government had a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. I wrote to the Secretary of State last year and asked him whether he would publish this plan. I am keen to hear from the Minister what happened to the plan and when the Government’s version can be expected.

As we are all well aware, in its election manifesto last year, the Labour party pledged to phase out animal testing. The Government’s starting position is that it is

“not yet possible to replace all animal use due to the complexity of biological systems and regulatory requirements for their use.”

We share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, but it is simply not realistic to do so with the immediacy that is often clamoured for by those protesting against the process. The medical industry desperately needs further investment to realise new alternatives. Currently, it does not have the resources to stop animal testing with immediate effect in a way that would ensure the sufficient safety of certain medicines, or that would be compliant with many foreign market standards and regulatory frameworks. Global medicines regulators such as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration require stringent research standards regarding the safety of a potential new medicine to be met before it is used in human clinical trials.

In February, I asked the Government what discussions they had had with the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic regarding the regulatory approval of non-animal methods. They responded:

“The Government is working to understand the international drivers and challenges to integrating non-animal methods into regulatory safety testing. This includes engaging with government scientists and regulators, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Food Standards Agency and Environment Agency, as well as international medicines and chemicals regulators”.

Separately, the Minister has informed me that these methods will need to be incorporated into the international regulatory guidelines that the MHRA adheres to. That is it. That is the Government’s entire approach to crossing the enormous hurdle of international recognition. Regardless of how much money we pour into research, without international recognition of specific non-animal methods for each pharmaceutical product tested via those means, international licensing of those products is simply not feasible, so any talk from the Government about phasing out animal testing is just lip service.

In September, I asked the Government what steps they were taking to change the policy of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to allow results from non-animal methods of pharmaceutical testing to be used to support drug safety through pre-clinical trials. They responded:

“We are engaging with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who represent the UK at the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on how to accelerate the acceptance of data generated in non-animal methods for drug safety decision making.”

I am aware that MHRA representatives attended a ministerial roundtable on accelerating the adoption of alternatives to using animals for drug development last year. Given that that was more than six months ago, I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made.

We need action from the Government in a number of areas if they are to meet their ambition of animal-free testing. We would welcome clarification from the Minister about what has been done and what will be done through conversations with other regulatory bodies and Governments about phasing out animal testing as a priority, when alternatives are available, in a way that does not hinder trade possibilities. As the Government work on trade deals, it is crucial, where medicines are concerned, that this area is looked at closely. The UK can lead the way.

Working with partners on this issue is key for our scientific and medical industry, because even where there may be alternatives to testing on animals, some products would not fit the criteria to sell elsewhere under the current rules. In February, I asked the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms if the Government would publish a timeline for the phasing out of tests via the work of the NC3Rs. He responded:

“We are working at pace trying to put together a practicable policy and a strategy which, as I said, we will publish by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 244.]

I am aware that the Government have already made clear that they will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods later this year. I do not anticipate that the situation has changed significantly in the 10 weeks since that exchange, but now that we are a third of the way through the year, I would like to hear from the Minister whether any progress has been made. Is a strategy now in place? Furthermore, will the Minister expand on what exact engagement the Department and the Government at large are having with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities on how to take their commitment forward?

The issue of licences for animal testing should also be addressed, although I appreciate that it is not within this Department’s brief. Marshall BioResources in my constituency last received an unannounced inspection from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in April 2024. Since receiving its establishment licence in October 2017, it has received eight announced and seven unannounced inspections. The outcome of the most recent inspection was that no critical, major or minor findings and no low-level concerns were identified. With that in mind, the Minister has previously informed me that the Government are preparing to conduct an internal review into the duration of project licences for animal research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The original schedule was for the review’s report to be published by the end of 2025. Could the Minister tell me whether the review has started and whether the report will still be published by year end?

To conclude, we want to see clear, pragmatic plans that support the Government’s manifesto pledges, and that must include viable alternative testing methods that are safe and that can sell on the international stage.