Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reason the Maritime and Coastguard Agency changed the operating model of the Coastguard Rescue Service to an unpaid model rather making changes necessary to reflect the Court of Appeal judgment in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Martin Groom and bringing volunteers' status into line with that of a worker.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Plans to move the Coastguard Rescue Service to an expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and current arrangements will remain in place. We will now take time to gather the robust information required to understand the full operational implications of future decisions, as well as the impact on individual Coastguard Rescue Officers and the choices they will make. This will involve engaging with CROs directly and ensuring that their views inform the decisions that we will take on the shape of the Coastguard Rescue Service.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, for what policy reason the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours is chosen to be between 8 and 20 hours per week.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours.
The consultation includes evidence from the Living Wage Foundation which shows that the percentage of workers working above contracted hours decreases with the number of contracted hours, with only around 19% of those with between 16-24 hours guaranteed working more hours than contracted.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's publication entitled Employment Rights Act 2025: economic analysis and enactment summary impact assessment, published 7 January 2026, for what policy reason the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours is chosen to be between 8 and 20 hours per week.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours.
The consultation includes evidence from the Living Wage Foundation which shows that the percentage of workers working above contracted hours decreases with the number of contracted hours, with only around 19% of those with between 16-24 hours guaranteed working more hours than contracted.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197 and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, if he will publish the sensitivity analysis undertaken when modelling the impacts of the guaranteed hours threshold.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The government has published the 2024 guaranteed hours impact assessment, including the results of the sensitivity analysis referred to in paragraph 62. The impact assessment made clear that many policy details, including eligibility and the process for making offers, would be set in secondary legislation following consultation. To account for this uncertainty, the impact assessment undertook sensitivity analysis in line with the Green Book, varying key assumptions around the potential population in scope and the time employers would take to familiarise with and implement the obligations associated with the right, as well as track hours and formalise guaranteed hours offers.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, what the key assumptions in the sensitivity analysis were.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)
The 2024 guaranteed hours impact assessment clarifies that many policy details, including eligibility and the process for making offers, would be set in secondary legislation following consultation. To account for this uncertainty, the impact assessment undertook sensitivity analysis in line with the Green Book, varying key assumptions around the potential population in scope and the time employers would take to familiarise with and, implement the obligations associated with the right, as well as track hours and formalise guaranteed hours offers. These assumptions are included within the impact assessment.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) ensures statutory requirements are met in practice when granting generic licences for regulatory testing.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Trained Home Office Inspectors assess applications for animal research on a case-by-case basis. All such research must meet the rigorous legal and ethical requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The use of animals in scientific procedures is only authorised where the proposed work is for a permissible purpose and where the expected benefits to human health, animal health, and the environment, justify the harms to the animals involved. In all cases, the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) must be fully applied.
Inspectors consider the scientific purpose of the proposed studies, the regulatory questions they are intended to address, and whether suitable non-animal alternatives are available. These studies support the safe development and use of medicines and other products, meaning the benefits of the work are clearly defined in advance, even where the specific test substance is not known at the outset. In practice, inspectors may request additional information or amendments from applicants to ensure that harms to animals are minimised and that the scientific justification for the work is robust. Once authorised, work must remain within the scope, severity limits and conditions of the licence.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how harm–benefit analysis is undertaken in relation to studies authorised under service licences where the specific substances are not specified in advance.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Trained Home Office Inspectors assess applications for animal research on a case-by-case basis. All such research must meet the rigorous legal and ethical requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The use of animals in scientific procedures is only authorised where the proposed work is for a permissible purpose and where the expected benefits to human health, animal health, and the environment, justify the harms to the animals involved. In all cases, the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) must be fully applied.
Inspectors consider the scientific purpose of the proposed studies, the regulatory questions they are intended to address, and whether suitable non-animal alternatives are available. These studies support the safe development and use of medicines and other products, meaning the benefits of the work are clearly defined in advance, even where the specific test substance is not known at the outset. In practice, inspectors may request additional information or amendments from applicants to ensure that harms to animals are minimised and that the scientific justification for the work is robust. Once authorised, work must remain within the scope, severity limits and conditions of the licence.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment she has made of whether the number of Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors is sufficient to scrutinise the scientific purpose of proposed studies under service licences alongside their existing workload; and what steps are being taken to ensure that suitable non-animal alternatives are identified and used, including in cases where such alternatives are not reflected in non-technical summaries.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The number of inspectors has recently been increased from an average of 14.5 inspectors in 2023 to 22 in 2026 following an assessment of the resource required for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit to meet its purpose and strengthen the regulatory system. The 3Rs, replacement, reduction and refinement, are a legal requirement under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and must be fully applied in every project involving the use of animals in science. Applicants must demonstrate consideration of the 3Rs before submission, and all applications are assessed by Home Office Inspectors to assure that no practicable non-animal alternatives exist, that animal numbers are minimised, and that methods are refined to reduce suffering. This assessment is supported by continuous scrutiny after a licence is granted. ASRU conducts announced and unannounced audits, reviewing records and practices to monitor the continually application of the 3Rs and that licence conditions remain appropriate. In November 2025, the Government published “Replacing animals in science: a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”. This strategy includes commitments to improve regulatory confidence and acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing, including plans to establish a UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM) to help coordinate validation activity and facilitate engagement between policy makers, regulators, industry end users and alternative method developers. This strategy includes clear time-bound targets for the reduction of animals used in science. In addition, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction is scheduled to provide recommendations to the Home Office to enhance the project licence application form for undertaking research involving animals. This will include advice aimed at strengthening the evaluation of replacement strategies. |
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4648, what assessment her Department has made of whether the statutory Home Office guidance used by inspectors and the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs) requires an update to reflect over 10 years of scientific progress since the guidance was published.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office keeps guidance related to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) under review. Regular independent advice is obtained through commissioning the independent statutory advisory body – the Animals in Science Committee (ASC). The ASC has been commissioned to provide advice on strengthening the functioning of Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies and also Named Information Officers. This advice is expected to inform future updates to guidance and regulatory standards, with a report expected later this year. The commission is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/commission-on-awerbs-and-named-information-officer.
Asked by: Michael Wheeler (Labour - Worsley and Eccles)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment her Department has made for the implications for her policies of page 14 of the The Animals in Science Committee’s Non-Human Primates Used in Service License publication of October 2024 on her policies.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government has considered the implications of the Animals in Science Committee’s advice, including the findings on page 14 of its October 2024 report on non-human primates used in service licences. The Minister for the Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) has formally responded to the Committee, and that response is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-human-primates-used-in-service-licences-response-from-lord-hanson.