Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[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—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob, but I can see that four Members already know that.

16:40

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir John. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2024 annual report of the ASRU makes for very grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with the legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. As he said, those include extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. It is shocking that the ASRU continues to grant scientific licences to allow animals to be deliberately deprived of food and water.

Other worrisome incidents include cases of two cats and four dogs being kept in substandard facilities, including a pen that was too small, and another dog that was kept alive longer than authorised, resulting in significant unnecessary suffering. Two primates were also reported to have been left without food overnight, and another two were injured while caged. In total, the ASRU report identified at least 542 animals dying or being euthanised following issues of non-compliance.

The report’s detailed accounts of the suffering of 22,000 animals is in stark contrast to our much-lauded identity as a nation of animal lovers. Our national reputation as a world leader on animal welfare legislation, particularly in relation to the use of animals in science, is in real jeopardy. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we are falling behind.

Despite its content, I welcome the report. If Britain is to remain a world leader on animal welfare, transparency around breaches of animal welfare standards is critical. It ensures accountability and allows both the public and lawmakers to routinely assess the adequacy of existing enforcement. Having read the report, I can only conclude that the ASRU is in urgent need of reform. Despite issuing 15,626 licences at the end of 2024, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. With the number of licences granted per inspector at its highest since 2012, there are serious concerns about the capacity of the ASRU to ensure effective compliance. Just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, and only 10 of those inspections were unannounced. What steps are the Government taking to reform the ASRU and improve the resourcing of its audits?

With 69% of non-compliance incidents in 2024 being self-reported, I worry that the extent of welfare breaches goes far beyond this, and I worry about the culture in our scientific institutions around safeguarding animal welfare and preventing undue suffering. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on this pattern of self-reporting and outline what steps the Government are taking to support a culture of safeguarding animal welfare in licensed organisations.

The adage that prevention is better than cure fits well here. Although enforcement needs strengthening and is an ongoing concern, the best way to manage the risks to animals through non-compliance is to stop animals from being used in scientific testing. As the hon. Gentleman said, the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement —are already a legal requirement under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Nevertheless, the embedding of this approach needs strengthening.

I welcome the Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only when there is no alternative, in line with the findings of the Rawle report. The commitments in the strategy are ambitious, but we can go further. Embedding in the law the targets to phase out routine tests, prioritised as parts of baskets 1 and 2, would provide absolute certainty to both the scientific community and campaigners of our commitment to end the use of animals in testing. Such a step could also crowd in wider investment in UK scientific research, strengthening our position as a global leader in the development of animal-free testing methods. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to introducing Herbie’s law and enshrining the targets committed to in recent strategies in legislation.

The 2024 report must be a catalyst for change. We must bear down on those who continue to neglect their responsibilities to uphold animal welfare with better enforcement and harsher penalties. While doing that, we cannot and should not neglect the fact that the only long-term solution to this avoidable suffering is to end animal testing once and for all.

16:45

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I add my appreciation to everyone he mentioned at the start of his excellent speech. I do not know of a bigger animal lover than my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and I thank her for all the work that she does with her excellent APPG.

As I said in a different debate yesterday, everything comes down to:

“what kind of society do we want to live in?”—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 17WH.]

This topic is no different.

Currently, we live in a country that tolerates and sanctions experimentations that lead to pain, mutilation, intense suffering and, ultimately, the grotesque and very avoidable deaths of animals in laboratories. Over 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK in 2024. That figure shocked me. It is utterly appalling. Like the Minister answering for the Government here today, as Labour candidates, we stood on a manifesto that committed to working towards phasing out animal testing. However, in 2025 it was approved that over 5 million animals would be used in experiments over the coming years. That simply has to change.

In a debate last week I made an intervention regarding passing Herbie’s law. If we are going to meet our manifesto commitment, passing Herbie’s law really is a must. We should move towards more modern, relevant and human-specific technologies for both the animals’ sake and for people needing treatment or who will do so in future.

As I said, it is a question of what kind of society we want to live in. The moral case is surely reason enough. It is basic human decency to know that there should be an end to animal experimentation. As with everything, for things to change for the better, there must be the political will to make it so. I implore the Minister and our Government to get behind Herbie’s law. It is the right thing for the animals, it is popular and by adopting it we would be making a genuine difference and change the country for the better.

16:47

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate and setting out the arguments so well.

I declare my interest as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. As some Members may already know, I have been a vegan since 1993, and this is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I have spoken on this issue several times and it does not get any easier. In a previous debate on testing on dogs, I quoted a debate from 1927, in which it was said:

“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]

It is sad to think that we are still debating this topic almost 100 years later.

As a Scottish MP, I was particularly concerned to see that in 2024 over 200,000 experiments were carried out on animals in Scotland. That was an 8.2% decrease from the previous year. However, it compares to Wales, which had a 16.7% decrease in experiments from 2023. Although I welcome the decreases, they must definitely be much quicker.

As we have heard today, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report from 2024, showed that 189 animals experienced adverse welfare outcomes; 54 of those cases were due to failure to provide adequate care, and nine were due to failure to provide food and water, sometimes for up to five days. Those cases of non-compliance are particularly concerning, and we also need to look at how well standards are being enforced in testing facilities—as we have heard already today. Given that almost 70% of cases were self-reported, this just is not good enough. We must look at another way of doing this.

I was glad to see the Government’s strategy on replacing animals in science come out last November. In particular, I welcome the £75 million of funding for new testing methods and the establishment of a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. However, I was disappointed to see missed opportunities around, for example, the forced swim test and the LD50 test. It is vital that timelines are introduced to enable a true phasing out of animals in medical research. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

16:50

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. We come from different political traditions, but on animal testing we are united.

I often receive emails and letters in my constituency inbox about animal rights and animal testing. It is an issue that is important to the people of Stockport. I am the last Back-Bench speaker in the debate, and all the points I wanted to make have already been covered, so I will keep my remarks brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who is a good friend, for all the work she does on this issue. Sir John, I invite you to join the plant-based parliamentary group she runs in addition to all the other work she does for her constituency and her APPG roles. I am sure you would be very welcome at the next meeting.

Sadly, the reality is that in 2024, 2.64 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Britain, including 2,646 procedures on dogs and almost 2,000—1,936—procedures on non-human primates. These figures are significant, and they are the figures we know about. Because of the lack of resources, many—including myself—would argue that more procedures and testing may be going on illegally that we do not know about. This is an important issue.

I am proud to have been a Labour candidate in the 2017, 2019 and 2024 general elections. We stood on a manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. Sadly, in 2025, almost 5 million animals were approved for experiments in the coming years. The Government need to pay attention to this issue and prioritise tackling it.

The point about Herbie’s law has been reiterated by pretty much everyone who has spoken. The Government should work towards introducing that law in legislation as soon as possible, without delay. All 650 MPs in this House of Commons would be proud of Britain’s heritage when it comes to innovation, medical research and technological research. We should harness that for animal-free and humane testing. The UK has an opportunity to be a global leader in this field and to cut out the senseless suffering that goes on. More than 92% of drugs that show promise in animal testing currently fail to meet clinical tests and benefit patients, mostly for reasons of poor efficacy and safety that were not predicted by animal testing.

I place on the record in Hansard my thanks to Animal Free Research UK, the charity that has done so much work on this issue. I am in the process of reading a fantastic book called “Rat Trap” by Dr Pandora Pound, who is involved in the Safer Medicines Trust. I look forward to learning more about the work that organisation is doing. Once again, this debate is important. The figures are quite stark and I hope the Government will take urgent action.

16:54

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this really important debate today. I congratulate all the speakers who have participated. I thought they all made powerful and useful contributions to the debate.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East powerfully highlighted some of the horrific and unacceptable treatment of animals in research. The Liberal Democrats are champions of animal rights, and I am proud to speak on behalf of the hundreds of animal rights campaigners from my constituency today. I must add a special mention of my constituent from Bude, Steph Jones-Giles, who is a true animal rights champion and has spoken to me about this on many occasions. I see Isobel Martin from Animal Free Research UK in the Gallery; she is also an excellent advocate on this issue.

Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats believe that this country should expect only the absolute highest standards of animal welfare in the scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries. We want to get this country back on track as a world leader in this area and take concrete steps to raise animal welfare standards and get the balance right. The latest annual report by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, the subject of our debate, shows a number of welcome steps and intentions facing the right direction of travel. It rightly places a strong focus on avoiding the use of animals in scientific testing wherever possible.

I am proud that we Liberal Democrats are at the forefront of raising these issues. Lord Clement-Jones, a colleague from the other place, is applying the right pressure to ensure that regulation in this area remains precise and adequate, with encouragement to properly prevent and punish any non-compliance that causes undue harm to animals, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. However, it is alarming to read, in the latest report, of the 146 cases of non-compliance in 2024. As many Members have pointed out, those are only the cases that have been reported. Although marking a drop in cases compared to the previous year, those were largely failures to provide proper care such as food and water to the animals being tested on, as we have heard, and to adhere to the strict licence conditions.

Those countless cases of malpractice involved more than 22,000 individual animals, with most being mice. It is a truly shameful statistic. In October 2024, the Regulation Unit made some welcome reforms by increasing their team of full-time inspectors and establishing a new governance board for the unit for greater oversight, which has made a welcome and positive impact.

On a wider point, I am proud to have voted against the draconian measures that were put before the House just over two weeks ago, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We stood firm against expansion of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans legitimate and peaceful animal rights protests and criminalises those activists demanding better welfare for animals involved in testing. I reiterate that once more: I am talking about peaceful campaigners who are raising genuine ethical concerns being treated like terrorists under the guise of threats to our national security. Time and time again in years gone by, the Conservative party undermined our right to peaceful protest by introducing sweeping, overreaching powers that go far beyond what is needed to maintain public safety. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour before the current Government and their Conservative predecessors imposed those totally unnecessary extra measures.

I will briefly refer to some hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted the starvation and injury of primates and, again, the possible under-reporting of non-compliance in the self-reporting system we find ourselves with, which means we may have only scratched the surface of illegal animal abuse. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) highlighted the 5 million animals that are to be used in experiments in the coming years, and made a powerful case for Herbie’s law. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been a long-standing champion on this issue; I think I am already a member of her APPG but, if I am not, I will make sure to join. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned how experiments have been made on more than 2,500 dogs and 1,000 primates, and, again, highlighted the cases that have not been reported.

Liberal Democrats are unapologetic in wanting to see minimal use of animals in scientific testing and the phasing out of testing altogether wherever possible and as soon as possible. We urgently call on the Government to provide greater funding into viable alternatives. In her response, will the Minister commit to a full, new animal health and welfare Bill that looks at the wider issue of animal welfare and delivers a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard animal wellbeing in this sector? As part of their ongoing reset talks with the European Union, will the Government sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible to ensure closer alignment on standards and quality with the trading block? Finally, will the Government commit to solidifying minimum standards for all imported food, so that our own animal standards are met by every other nation looking to do business? That would prevent our British farmers being undercut by poorer-quality foreign imports that do not have the same standards.

17:00

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate and all Members who have spoken in it. There are few issues that reflect our values as a society more than how we treat creatures in our care. Many people in our communities and across our country rightly feel strongly about this, and it is clear from the debate that Members from all parties share concerns for animal welfare.

Animal testing should be a last resort, only when there are no viable alternatives. That was the view of the last Conservative Government. We did not just talk about the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—but legally embedded them into the fabric of our regulatory framework. We backed that with £90 million in research and a £27 million further fund called the CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme, as well doubling annual investment to £20 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year. We also refused to vote for bans on protests outside animal testing sites. Can the Minister confirm whether the levels of investment that we left in place have been maintained, and what steps are being taken to accelerate the development of alternatives?

Turning to the annual report, these are figures that warrant rigorous scrutiny. I welcome the fact that the number of animals experiencing adverse welfare outcomes has fallen, but the statistics on non-compliance make for very difficult reading. As we heard, there were 146 cases of non-compliance across 45 different establishments, with 63 of those involving a failure to provide basic care such as food, water or suitable facilities.

The unacceptable instances highlighted by Members are harrowing: unweaned pups starving to death after their mother was killed; mice left without water for five days; and live animals accidentally placed in waste bags. Those are not administrative oversights; they should be criminal acts. Those animals are supposed to be protected under our regulatory system, but concerningly, 75% of cases are resolved with inspector advice alone. Does the Minister agree that a letter of reprimand is not a sufficient deterrent for such a profound failure of care?

We must ensure that sanctions are not just administrative slaps on the wrist but robust measures that prevent recurrence and punish wilful neglect and cruelty. Just last month, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) asked directly whether a letter of reprimand was adequate. The Minister’s answer referred to a compliance framework, but did not address whether this sanction was sufficient. Will the Minister before us today commit to reviewing the effectiveness of current sanctions?

On staffing, while I know the Government have committed to increase inspector capacity by March 2026, capacity is currently lower than the average over the last 10 years, so I urge a focus on adequate recruitment. Turning to the 2025 strategy, the proposed three-baskets approach provides a welcome road map. It is right that the Government move quickly where mature technology exists, such as in skin-irritation testing, and aim for total replacement in 2026.

However, I sound a note of caution: we must ensure that we do not see countries with lower regulatory standards becoming industrialised for animal testing. Some products will continue to require animal testing, and we must not rely on animal suffering being exported and happening elsewhere, because that will be under worse conditions beyond the reach of British regulation. It would be not a victory for animal welfare but an abdication of responsibility. Can the Minister also share what steps have been taken to ensure that products imported into this country have been developed to adequate standards?

We all want to see the day when animal testing is no longer needed, but until that day comes, we have a duty to ensure that every procedure is justified, every harm is minimised, and every failure of care is met with the full force of a robust and well-resourced regulator, not a written rap on the knuckle.

17:04

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.

It is important to start by reflecting on the horror of some of the stories we have heard and some of the cases that have been reported regarding animal treatment. I question whether anybody in this House would want that to continue. I suspect we are all united in wanting to phase out animal testing as quickly as possible. It is understandable that there are Members of this House who are pushing the Government to go much faster than we already are, but we are all heading in the same direction and trying to get the same outcome. It is right and proper that campaign groups, Members of Parliament and others continue to push us to do everything we can, because we need to do that.

The transparency of the report was important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) said, we need to understand picture, and the more information and data we have, the more we can see where the challenges are. I agree with that point; we need more transparency in the system to make sure we get to where we went to be as quickly as possible.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), said, our laws are unequivocal that animal testing cannot be authorised where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative exists. That is the law, and we need to make sure it is implemented. It is a fundamental principle for us all, in terms of the care that we have for our animals and the need to avoid unnecessary harm. As the shadow Minister also said, at the moment, despite rapid progress in science, there are not validated alternatives for every area of research and safety testing.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister says there are not alternatives, but there are. The forced swim test is a classic, as is the LD50. These need to be phased out; we do not need them any more. I gently encourage the Minister to tell us how we can phase these out as quickly as possible.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her persistence with me; I expect her to continue to be persistent. We can go faster with some things than others, and I will come on to the strategy that the Government have published, which has been broadly welcomed across the House. We want to go as fast as we can in the work that we do. Obviously, we are focusing today on the animals in science regulation unit, and the annual report that it published. It is not actually a statutory responsibility for it to publish that report, although maybe it should be, so I welcome its publication.

[Navendu Mishra]

The Minister is making an important speech. I am pleased to learn that pretty much everyone in this debate shares the vision of phasing out animal testing. I have two questions: first, does the Home Office have enough resources for tackling illegal and unethical animal testing; secondly, would she work with the MPs in this debate to make that report a statutory requirement?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for jumping on something I have said and holding me to account for it, which is very good. We had a similar debate to this one last week or the week before, and what came out of it—I will come on to this—was an understanding that the regulator is going through a period of reform and increasing capacity. Good things are happening in that space, but there is concern among MPs that that is not going fast or widely enough.

In the last debate, I suggested that we should meet as a group of MPs with the regulator, have these conversations and try to flush out some of the things that MPs are concerned about. The MPs who were taking part in that debate had not had the opportunity to have those conversations with the regulator, so I took back as an action that we should sit collectively and have that conversation, which I am happy to do. The reason I am not directly giving my hon. Friend the immediate response that he is asking for in terms of changing the statutory responsibility of the regulator is just because it does not sit within my remit. I want to make sure that hon. Members are satisfied that we are going as fast and as far as we can, and perhaps a meeting with the regulator would be useful on that front.

The reform that I had begun to talk about, which is overseen by my noble Friend Lord Hanson in the other place and was agreed last year, has involved an increase. Members have rightly said, “Are there enough people focused on doing this work?” We have seen an increase in inspectors from an average of 14.5 full-time equivalents in 2023 to 22 by March 2026. By expanding its capabilities, it is able to do more; the conversation that we would want to have with the regulator is about whether it is satisfied that is enough, or whether it thinks we need to go further.

The two-pronged approach of this Government is, first, to phase out the use of animal testing. I pay tribute to the campaigners pushing for Herbie’s law and I absolutely understand the need for pace and for us to be held to account to go as fast as we can. The strategy to phase out the use of animals, alongside a beefed-up regulator, is the response that this Government are taking. We want to maintain public confidence in our animal testing processes and in our research. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said—I have now quoted her three times; I need to stop quoting her so much—we do need to make sure that the life sciences industry, which is important for this country, is not pushing animal testing abroad and that we maintain our standards here.

I heard the message from Members about the fear that we might fall behind our European Union and US colleagues in this space. I am very interested in working across Government with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Lord Vallance, who are leading on the phasing out of animal research work, to push as hard as we can and look abroad. I will take that back as another action and speak to my colleague Lord Vallance—I suspect hon. Members already have—to make sure that we are learning the lessons from other countries and not falling behind; that, in fact, we are keeping pace.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt have highlighted the work of the Government. I know the Government are committed to phasing out animal testing, but the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report highlights the horrors that we unfortunately have in the system. Does she not agree that we need to work at pace to ensure that alternative methods are explored and implemented?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.

[Sarah Jones]

Thank you, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course we need to go as fast as we can.

The strategy that the Government have published includes establishing a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and 26 commitments for delivery or initiation across 2026 and 2027. It includes a commitment that from this year

“we will publish biennially a list of alternative methods research and development priorities to coalesce UK scientists around these areas and to incentivise partnerships between research organisations”.

In our most recent debate on this subject, we talked about this being an opportunity for UK science and technology to be innovators in this space and push forward new science. We want to go as fast as we can, and we will move as quickly as the science allows. Our commitment is clear: we want to work in step with the scientific community to reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals in research.

As hon. Members know, we have a three-pronged regulatory framework. It requires a personal licence—about 13,000 people have one. The procedures must form part of an approved programme of work, which must be licensed, and the work must be carried out in a licensed establishment. Our licensing is robust, in terms of the processes that people must go through before they do something as serious as test on animals. Even before a proposed project to test on animals reaches the regulator for consideration, it must undergo multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure it is justified and ethical, including from funders and animal welfare and ethical review bodies at scientific establishments. That is important.

On the work of the regulator, the transparency that we want to deliver and the changes that we have pushed through, we want to ensure we get this right. My noble Friend Lord Hanson commissioned the Animals in Science Committee—an expert committee that advises the Government on animal protection—to provide recommendations on improving the accessibility of the publicly available animal testing project summaries, and proposals are now being considered. That reflects our commitment to openness, accountability and continuous improvement.

Several hon. Members spoke about the point at which audits are made and checks are carried out. They are concerned about self-reporting. I heard that in the previous debate, and I have heard it today; that is an important part of the conversation that we need to have with the regulator. There is an important question about whether we are doing enough unannounced audits, and I am committed to going back and testing that. With the support of hon. Members, we can look at that properly.

As lots of Members said, 2.5 million procedures were conducted in Great Britain in 2024, so this is a big landscape and we need to get it right. I recognise the potential for error and wrongdoing. I want to ensure that hon. Members and campaigners are as satisfied as possible that the regulator is doing what it needs to do. There is a programme of reform under way, and we need to test it and see whether it is enough. I am committed to speaking to Lord Vallance. If any Members want to come to a meeting with the regulator, they should let me know; that will be important.

The fact that the Government have put £75 million behind the programme to phase out animal testing shows that we are putting our money where our priorities are. I know that hon. Members across the House will welcome that, but of course we need to go as fast as we can. In that vein, I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate and holding the Government to account on these very important issues.

17:18

[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.

Sitting adjourned.