Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Debate between Seamus Logan and John Hayes

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Seamus Logan and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.