Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department is taking to ensure rigorous application of section 5(5)(b) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 during the assessment of project licence applications involving the use of dogs; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of current procedures in ensuring that protected animals are not used where a scientifically satisfactory non-animal alternative is available.

The Government has interpreted the question as referring to section 5B(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as the Act does not contain a section 5(5)(b).

Before granting a project licence, the Home Office must evaluate the proposed programme of work. This includes assessing whether the applicant has demonstrated that the purpose of the work cannot be achieved by a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy that does not involve protected animals. Where such an alternative is available, the use of animals cannot be authorised.

Qualified Home Office inspectors scrutinise the evidence provided by applicants, including the scientific justification for the work, compliance with the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, and the proposed use of any specially protected species. As with all species, dogs may be used only where their use is specifically justified and the relevant statutory criteria are met. A licence cannot be granted unless the expected benefits of the programme are judged to justify the likely harms to the animals.

These statutory requirements and the independent scrutiny applied during licence assessment provide safeguards against the use of protected animals where a scientifically satisfactory non-animal alternative is available. The Home Office has also commissioned the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research to review the project licence application process, including how information on the 3Rs is provided and assessed. Its recommendations are expected later this year and will inform consideration of any further improvements to the process.