Animal Testing

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate, and I thank the petitioners and campaigners who have brought the issue before Parliament. Many of them are my City of Durham constituents, and I am pleased to represent them today.

We often talk in this place about giving people a voice, but today we also provide one to other sentient beings. This debate ought to be about not just more humane treatment for animals but, importantly, better science, better regulation and better outcomes, as well as higher welfare standards. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a welcome step. It recognises that the UK should move towards phasing out animal use in all but exceptional circumstances, and it commits funding for alternatives, including through the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and a preclinical translational models hub. The question is whether that strategy is ambitious enough.

Organisations such as Camp Beagle, Animal Defenders International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society International UK and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments are concerned that, although the strategy has good intentions, it is not yet hard enough on delivery, and lacks clear statutory targets, a firm timetable and proper accountability for whether animal use is falling. That matters, because the scale remains significant. Home Office figures show that there were around 2.6 million scientific procedures involving animals in Great Britain in 2024. That represents a negligible 1.21% decrease on 2023. Animal Defenders International and the Herbie’s law campaign report that 2,646 procedures involved dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, and that most of those procedures were for regulatory purposes. Nearly 2,000 procedures were on non-human primates, a staggering number of which will face lengthy and stressful transportation from Africa or Asia to then endure a life of experimentation. Simply put, that feels unethical.

The Government have set targets to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in some pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular safety studies by 2030. That is welcome, but it is limited. It does not amount to a clear route to ending unnecessary dog testing, and does not fully address the question of second species testing, in which dogs are still used even though campaigners and researchers argue that the added scientific value can be weak.

There is a serious scientific case for moving faster. The Thomas, Chancellor and Micklus clinical development report on success rates from 2011 to 2020 showed an overall likelihood of approval from phase 1 of only 7.9%. Campaigners rightly point to that as evidence that the current system is not delivering as well as patients, researchers and animals need it to. Crucially, animal models do not always translate reliably into human biology. Results that appear promising in animals can fail when they reach human trials, while potentially useful treatments may be delayed or lost because animal data does not accurately reflect how the human body responds. That should not make us less serious about safety. Instead, we should embrace methods that give us better evidence, better predictions and better outcomes. That is why human-relevant science matters. Alternatives in this area are developing quickly, such as organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell models, computational modelling and AI-assisted advanced imaging. Those are not fringe ideas; they are increasingly central to the future of modern biomedical research.

The Government should strengthen their strategy by setting clearer annual milestones, publishing the baseline behind their targets, giving regulators such as the MHRA a clear mandate to accept validated alternatives, and ensuring animal welfare organisations and independent scientists are involved in monitoring progress. The UK has a real opportunity to lead in humane, human-relevant science, but that will need more than warm words. It will require pace, transparency, investment and a willingness to challenge outdated regulatory habits.

When it is reported that seven out of 10 people in Britain support the introduction of a new law that would end animal experiments in medical research by 2035, it is clear that we must take this topic seriously. We owe it to our constituents and the animals that suffer for our gain. The Government have made a start; they now need to go further and faster.