Animal Testing

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified.

Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless.

Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself.

The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients.

The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly.

The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public.

The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty.

This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, in this important debate. I thank Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for being a doughty campaigner for not just her constituents, but all their pets and animals. She has done that since she came into this place in 2024, and she deserves a great deal of respect and admiration for it. I also thank each and every one of the many people who took the time to sign the e-petition and those who are in the Public Gallery today.

I look forward to the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research. Unfortunately, that day is not quite yet with us. Our direction of travel is very clear: we want to replace animals in science wherever possible, which was why our 2024 manifesto committed us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. Our approach to achieve that is set out in last November’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which many Members mentioned.

The strategy is groundbreaking. It brings together funding, infrastructure and regulatory partners so that validated alternatives can move from the lab into routine use safely and at pace. Many Members have talked about pace, which is the key issue here. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research unfortunately remains.

First, I will expand on the ambition to phase out animal research. Secondly, although we are not yet fully ready to end testing on dogs and other animals, given the current position of science, I will set out the plan that we will put in place to do so. The petition asked the Government to accelerate the move to human-relevant alternative methodologies, and that is exactly the purpose of the strategy. It is about speeding up development and validation, increasing uptake in practice, and working with regulators so that when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used.

The strategy is not just words; it is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods. I will break that down shortly, given that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked about it. We are already delivering at pace by working with regulators and partners to streamline routes for validated alternatives to be accepted, backing researchers with new funding through UK Research and Innovation, and supporting the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies, ensuring that advances are reflected in policy and practice, and that regulations on animal research are seen through.

Nearly £16 million of new investment has been announced through the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and Innovate UK, working in partnership with NC3Rs to accelerate the development of human disease models. The MRC has also launched a £20 million funding competition to establish a pre-clinical translational human in vitro models hub, and Innovate UK has committed a further £2 million for non-animal methods that have the potential to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in assessing the pre-clinical pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular safety of new medicines.

We are building the collaboration and infrastructure needed to scale up alternatives into everyday research and development and safety assessments where it is safe and effective to do so. We are also working to increase regulatory confidence so that, when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used consistently, and at pace, in practice.

We are consistently pushing change. In 2024, the use of dogs in experimental procedures decreased by 29% compared with 2023, as many Members said, and the broader trend is towards reducing animal use as alternatives continue to improve, but we are not complacent, and we should not be complacent. We want to get that figure as close to zero as possible.

As the strategy sets out, we are working towards a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but very exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods whenever possible, but does not prevent necessary research and safety testing when no alternative is available. By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use while continuing to support crucial research and innovation. As the science advances, we will use every opportunity to phase out the use of animals whenever we can.

I will run through some of the issues around the strategy and also address the comments that hon. Members made. Lord Vallance is responsible for this area in the House of Lords—I am the responsible Minister in the House of Commons—and he has probably the most advanced scientific brain that I have ever come across in government. He said something that I think is worth emphasising about this strategy:

“This Government is proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to ‘partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing’”—

I have reflected on some of that already. He also said:

“we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing”.

We will align with international standards and we will say more about that at the end of this year. He continued:

“Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated…Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals”.

Nobody in our country of animal lovers—we have many animal lovers here, including me—wants to see animals suffering. Our plan will support work to end animal testing and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so. That road map that will ensure that the Government, businesses and animal-welfare groups can work together to find those alternatives to animal testing faster and more effectively.

There are 26 actions in the strategy. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Stuart, that I will not run through them all, but many hon. Members will know the document.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

[Ian Murray]

We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.

Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.

Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:

“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”

Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.

I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.

Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?