Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. In Newport West and Islwyn, 562 of my constituents have signed this petition. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important issue this afternoon, and to demonstrate, especially to those in the Public Gallery, that Members in this place are really listening and working on their behalf.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the exceptional animal welfare charities, including, but not limited to, the RSPCA, Naturewatch Foundation, PETA, Animal Free Research UK, Replacing Animal Research and Cruelty Free International. Their vital work to brief MPs about key issues and campaigns, and to provide us with facts and figures, equips us to make representations in this place on behalf of animals. As we know, and as I always say, we must speak up for animals, because they cannot speak up for themselves.

As we have heard, in 2023 there were a total of 3,770 uses of dogs in scientific procedures. I am deeply concerned about the use, and the potential suffering, of any animal in research and testing. I firmly believe that the ultimate goal should be the total replacement of all animal experiments with humane alternatives, and I would like to see a diversion of existing funding, resources and expertise away from animal experiments.

I hope that this debate will encourage the consideration of all current uses of animals in science and illustrate the support for achieving faster development and uptake of non-animal technologies. However, as the petition illustrates, the strength of public feeling on this issue is particularly apparent when it comes to dogs, who—as we have already heard from hon. Members—are much-loved members of their families, whether they are ugly, pretty or whatever. That is really important.

I am delighted that this Labour Government have committed to working towards phasing out the use of animal testing. Scientific reviews highlight the inability of data from dogs to predict human response accurately and consistently. With the existence of new and developing cutting-edge technology, we do not need whole-body animal systems to assess chemical and drug safety or to advance our scientific knowledge of diseases. The adoption of non-animal technologies would enable rapid development of novel therapeutics and better safety testing data for the protection of human health. Such an approach has the potential to improve efficiency, speed and prediction for humans while cutting costs and reducing animal suffering. Human-specific approaches such as artificial intelligence, organ on a chip and computer modelling produce results that are much more relevant to people—as ably outlined in this debate.

I, like many others who may be more mature, have had the benefit of seeing the demonstration of these technologies at events in Parliament. It is really important that we actually go and see these technologies for ourselves.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I was horrified when I became aware that dogs could still be force-fed pesticides as part of these proposals. Does the hon. Lady agree that what we need from the Government today—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is clear dates for an end to testing on dogs and all animals?

[Ruth Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech a little bit further, he would have found that I have some specific questions for the Minister—it is always good to ask specifics.

It is vital that the Government produce and execute ambitious road maps for accelerating the development and uptake of advanced non-animal technologies and new approach methodologies. The UK cannot afford to fall behind other countries that are already delivering on that.

I am delighted that my early-day motion 210, on Herbie’s law, has 49 signatures from hon. Members across the House—there is still time and space, in case anyone is wondering whether they want to sign it. Beagles make up 95% of the dogs used in the sort of animal testing procedures that we have heard about; Herbie’s law, named after a rescued beagle, would provide a practical framework for phasing out animal testing over the next decade and supporting the scientific community with that transition. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) well with his Bill, which is based on Herbie’s law, and I congratulate him on his hard work on this campaign.

I look forward to a comprehensive and ambitious plan from the Government for delivering this transition, and I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to outlining that as she winds up. The petition that inspired this debate today shows the strength of public feeling on this issue, so it is also vital that there is complete transparency in the reporting of statistics around the use of animals.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I am advised by Matthew, a West Dunbartonshire constituent, that animals—including dogs—bred for scientific procedures and not used are omitted from Britain’s annual statistics on animal testing. If true, that means we have no real idea how many animals are used for science overall in Britain. The Home Office estimated back in 2017 that an additional 1.8 million animals were bred and then not used, which is nearly 50% more than our annual official Government figures would suggest. Sadly, apparently those animals either died or were destroyed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of becoming a country or society that does not harm dogs and animals will be more difficult without full transparency?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a vital point; it is all about transparency. At the moment, as he rightly said, the Government do not routinely provide information about the number of animals that are bred for use in scientific procedures, but not used. What happens to those animals later in their lives? Although the EU currently collects and publishes that important data every five years, the UK has not done so since 2017. In Britain, we know that at least a third—my hon. Friend said nearly half—of the total number of animals used in science were bred and not used.

Naturewatch Foundation’s “Forgotten Lives” campaign seeks to highlight the potentially hundreds of thousands of invisible animals who are undisclosed in UK Government figures. This information is vital to improving transparency and allowing for a more accurate assessment of the current impact of science on animals in the UK. Efforts to reduce, and ultimately to replace, the use of animals in scientific procedures will be difficult to measure and evaluate unless statistical data routinely includes all animals used in science.

In closing, I ask the Minister two key questions. First, when will the Government provide a detailed road map about the transition to human-relevant science as part of their commitment to phasing out animal testing? Secondly, when will the Government review the current publication of statistics to ensure accuracy and transparency? Labour is the party of animal welfare; legislation to improve the lives of animals has formed a vital part of the legacies of past Labour Governments, and I look forward to building on that with this Government. Ending the use of dogs must be a first step in the full transition to the cutting-edge, human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am happy to share the research and reasons behind my arguments.

For the reasons I have given, animal testing is required by the international agreements followed by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used.

The key proposal in the petition is for an immediate ban on the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated. However, I regret to say that forbidding the use of dogs in medical research—without alternatives at the moment—would likely have catastrophic effects on the UK’s medical research system. We would be unable to meet international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, preventing virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK and vastly reducing the number of subsequent clinical trials. A significant proportion of basic research would cease, preventing new insight into disease and treatments that save lives and improve people’s health. Forbidding the use of animals in medical research would also likely have a negative impact on animal welfare. Animal testing would move overseas, to countries where the regulations on the use of animals in science are less stringent than they are here.

I am proud to say that the UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise that technology as much as possible. As much as we can, we are striving to partner with regulators to see how advances in technology can phase out animal use where we are able to do that.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is making an interesting speech, because the Labour party manifesto commitment is very clear: we are looking to ban animal testing. We have talked about a road map, which Labour has committed to, so when will that be published and when will the strategy be published? I ask because those are vital things that people in the Public Gallery want to know today.

[Feryal Clark]

My hon. Friend intervenes at the right time, as I was about to say that in publishing our road map, we will be setting out how we can go even further in supporting alternative methods and working towards a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternatives wherever possible.

Currently, through UKRI, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs. That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.