Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John, and it is a pleasure to introduce this debate. It concerns the use of animals in scientific research and the most recent Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report for 2024, which was published in December 2025. The subject is important to me, to many of my constituents and possibly to up to half the population of these islands who have the pleasure—nay, the privilege—of sharing their lives with a pet.

I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who leads the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, as well as to the work of Animal Free Research UK and its chief executive, Carla Owen, who is in the Public Gallery and was behind the Herbie’s law campaign. Herbie has unfortunately passed, but the campaign lives on. I also want to thank Cruelty Free International, which continues to champion the ending of animal research worldwide.

In this debate, I want to focus on the weak oversight of the regulations, which has led to shocking failures to protect animals from undue suffering; that has been highlighted in the Home Office report. The findings show just how much we are failing to prevent animals from suffering when they are used in scientific experiments, due to the incidence of non-compliance with the law or with licence conditions. The report focuses on numerous incidents from across 2024, which sadly included animals that have starved to death or drowned. Other animals were put into waste bags by mistake and others were kept alive beyond humane endpoints. The incidents in the report make for upsetting reading. I am a supporter of phasing out animal experimentation in medical research, and I believe this transition should be completed urgently. The very least we can do in the meantime for those animals used in laboratories is to ensure their welfare and minimise their suffering.

It is important to put the issue in context. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures using animals took place in UK labs: five animals used in research every minute of every day, representing a decrease of only 1.21% from 2023.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Given the more than 2.6 million procedures and the small year-on-year decrease, does not progress on replacing the use of animals in science remain only incremental? What is needed is a truly transformational shift. Does the hon. Member accept that, unless urgent and ambitious progress is made, public confidence will continue to be undermined on this issue?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree; that is the point that I am trying to draw out.

There were 2,646 procedures on dogs and 1,936 on non-human primates. Examples include non-human primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery and deprived of fluid to induce them to perform behavioural tasks and mice being given psychostimulant rewards such as cocaine or amphetamines—and this, under licence conditions. However, the ASRU report highlighted instances in which compliance with these licence conditions was not followed; there have been failures to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, which are the most basic welfare needs of animals being held in laboratories across the UK.

In one very distressing incident, it is reported that a mother was removed from its cage and killed, resulting in unweaned pups starving to death. In 2024, there were 146 cases of non-compliance in British laboratories, a 16% decrease from the 169 cases reported in 2023.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for rightly bringing us this debate. He is right to say that many people are concerned. Between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of animal welfare convictions in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence. Councils and enforcement bodies need greater funding to gather evidence, because evidence is critical for successful prosecutions. Does he agree that one takeaway from the report he refers to is that we can and should do more to protect animal welfare where possible, and the Government need to raise the priority for it?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree, although the hon. Member is addressing the wider issue of animal welfare, while my focus today is on this report. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right.

I was talking about non-compliance. The cases involved more than 22,000 animals, including mice, rats, fish, cows, sheep, frogs, guinea pigs, bats, dogs, non-human primates, cats, a hamster and a rabbit. I might add that those are the reported incidents; 68 establishment audits were conducted for the report but only 3% of cases of non-compliance were identified by audits and 69% were self-reported. That can hardly be described as a robust inspection system. In 75% of cases—three quarters—the only sanction was “inspector advice”.

The ASRU is responsible for licensing animal experiments in the UK, to protect animals in science and ensure compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That means following the principles known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. In other words, use non-animal methods where possible, reduce the number used to a minimum and refine procedures to minimise suffering. I know from visits undertaken by the APPG, which I referred to earlier, that there is a growing use of laboratory-grown human tissue in experimentation, which we need to support as parliamentarians.

The UK Government have stated:

“The Home Office is in the final stages of delivering a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform to further strengthen the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), ensuring confidence in the regulatory system and maintaining robust compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.”

Those reforms include increasing the number of full-time inspectors by March this year, but I would argue that that internal reform does not go far enough. The incidence of non-compliance shows that increasing the number of inspectors alone may not result in meaningful change.

I mentioned that 2.64 million procedures are taking place each year. We cannot rely solely on a few more full-time inspectors to turn the situation around; I note that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying. Labour’s publication last November of its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to the use of animals in science is very welcome, but meaningful change will not occur without a series of more robust measures.

I believe that the difficulty is that the UK is in danger of falling behind other international partners—in the European Union and, interestingly, in the US, which is speeding forward within three to five years to remove the requirement for animals to be used in research. It is strange that we appear to be falling behind internationally in this instance. Although the strategy is committed to increasing funding for human-specific technologies, founding a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and setting up a cross-Government ministerial Committee to oversee implementation, it contains no timeline for phasing out all animal experiments.

We on the APPG on phasing out animal experiments have discussed implementing Herbie’s law as a practical pathway to phase out animal testing, in collaboration with the scientific community. Legal experts have prepared a draft of Herbie’s law, entitled the human-specific technologies bill, describing how Government could ensure progress and how scientists could be supported, with detail on setting up an expert advisory committee to give specialist advice on animal replacement. I think I speak for many attending the debate when I say that we are keen to see an end to animal suffering in medical research.

The ASRU report’s findings are a stark reminder of what is at stake for animals when the law is broken, when licence conditions are not followed or when measures to ensure compliance are not as robust as they could be. The UK has an opportunity not only to secure our position as a global leader in animal protection and scientific innovation, but to end animal suffering in scientific research. That can be ensured only through a full transition from animal experimentation across the next decade. The ASRU report is a stark reminder that until that transition is in place, we will continue to fail animals in laboratories across the UK.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—a colleague who is no longer here once referred to him as the Member for aloha—and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns).

I also thank the Minister for her very thoughtful response. I cannot think of many topics on which there is such a tremendous cross-party alliance, which has included the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members. As the Minister said, virtually no MP would disagree with our intent here, so that is very encouraging.

I am particularly interested in a couple of the Minister’s comments. She said that where a non-animal alternative exists, no approval should be given—absolutely. She drew attention to the need to move as quickly as the science allows. I am sure the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, noted her invitation to meet Lord Vallance to discuss these issues. That would be very welcome indeed.

It simply remains for me to mention my own little pet cockapoo, Lola. Anyone who knows anything about dogs know how sentient and clever they are. They have an amazing vocabulary, and they can count. The only thing they cannot do is speak—more’s the pity—although that is maybe not a bad thing in some ways. I will conclude by thanking everyone who took part, and the members of the public who attended.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and others might like to know that there is some evidence to suggest that bees can count. I speak as a beekeeper.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, 

That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.