Animal Testing

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on opening this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on cats—I was interested in the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)’s comments about conversations with them, which many will relate to.

Fundamentally, we are a nation of animal lovers. More than 60% of UK households own a pet—or, in the case of cats, are owned by them. For millions of families across the country, our pets or other companion animals are not simply animals, but beloved members of our family. We care deeply about their welfare, and rightly so. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority on veterinary services, which will help to reduce the costs of pet care at a time when many households are still feeling the strain of rising costs. Cost should never be a barrier to getting our beloved animals treated when they are sick.

While we rightly focus on easing pressures on pet owners—something that is as much a welfare as a cost of living issue—we must also confront the wider question of how animals are treated in our society, particularly those hidden from public view in laboratories and testing facilities. At its heart, animal testing is a moral issue and an animal welfare issue, but it is also increasingly clear that it is a scientific and economic issue. I welcome the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which delivers on our manifesto commitment. That strategy is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30 million for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. The strategy includes a target that aims

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030”

and

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.”

The continued use of animals in experiments is not only inhumane, but often ineffective, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran eloquently outlined earlier. For example, dogs continue to be used in scientific testing despite clear biological differences between them and humans: they absorb drugs differently, their gastric pH levels differ from ours, their metabolic enzymes function differently and they have different cardiovascular systems, with higher heart rates and distinct electrical activity regulating their heartbeat. Those are not minor differences; they are fundamental biological distinctions that can make dogs poor predictors for how treatments will behave in humans.

The consequences are plain to see. Developing a new medicine takes, on average, 14 years and costs more than £1 billion, yet more than 95% of drugs fail before reaching patients. That is not simply an inefficient system—it is evidence that elements of our drug development model are no longer fit for purpose. The continued reliance on animal testing is part of that problem. Behind the statistics is the ethical reality. Animals used in experiments are subject to invasive procedures, prolonged confinement and real distress, and are often left with lasting physical and physiological harm. The British public are fully aware of the scale of that harm, which is why they are demanding change. Indeed, more than seven in 10 Brits support a ban on animal testing, according to a YouGov poll from last year.

“Change” is the slogan this Government were elected on, and change on this issue is eminently possible. Around the world, momentum is building towards modern alternatives—human-relevant technologies, advanced cell modelling and AI-driven methods—that are often more accurate, efficient and humane than animal experimentation. I urge the Government to move forward with Herbie’s law and to set a clear national pathway to phase out animal experiments over the next decade, working closely with scientists, researchers and industry to accelerate the transition to modern alternatives.

This is not a choice between compassion and progress—we can achieve both. We can lead the world in pioneering better science; we can reduce unnecessary suffering; and we can build a future in which medical innovation is not dependent on outdated, inhumane practices. That would be a victory for science, for patients and, above all, for animals and their welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.

Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.

Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:

“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”

Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.

I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.

Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?

[Johanna Baxter]

Mo Meowlam!

[Ian Murray]

Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.

Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.