Animal Testing

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must be the night owl of this debate.

I have long believed that replacing the use of animals in experiments is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is the mark of a civilised society that we treat animals well. It is ethically sound, but can also be economically beneficial. Replacement technologies are a real growth opportunity for the life sciences sector. Human base models are more accurate and relevant, saving time and aiding profitability. A KPMG UK life sciences report argued that, if new technologies are employed, they have the potential to accelerate market entry for innovative products by up to two years, potentially saving up to £7.8 million. What is more, the UK is well positioned to lead. We have a really strong life sciences sector, especially across the east of England, as well as expertise and infrastructure. If we unleash our scientists alongside a Government with really clear objectives, the future is bright.

That is also what people want. Petitions like the one we are debating, poll after poll, and the number of people in the Public Gallery show that the UK public really want to see action. A statistic I find interesting is that 76% of people want to see funding diverted from animal experiments to animal-free methods. They do not want animals to suffer. We have heard so many examples of that suffering throughout the debate, like the 2,646 dogs used in experiments in 2024. That led to horrific outcomes: vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding, organ failure and, ultimately, death.

We can do better, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. We can learn from the ban on animal testing for cosmetics, which was brought in in the UK in 1998—under a Labour Government, of course—and introduced across the EU in 2013. That cosmetic testing ban pushed science to meet the legal deadlines. It accelerated work to develop and approve new non-animal methods. The ban also stimulated big investment in non-animal methods: over €238 million in EU funding was spent on those between 2007 and 2011. Without the legal deadlines set by those bans, it is likely that many of the non-animal methods we know today would simply not exist.

Whenever I read research websites or documents, I am struck by how often many of them are at pains to point out that they stick to the letter of the law, no more, no less—perhaps more importantly, no more. That is why the law must be a key driver of change. As we have heard, science is moving at pace, with organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell-based models, computer models and AI, which we hear about in all kinds of debates but can particularly take heart from here. When the astronauts went off to the moon recently, I saw that they took some of those organs on chips with them. That is progress. We used to take monkeys, dogs and mice and blast them into space, and now we are taking an organ on a chip instead.

Back down on Earth, this is clearly an area where Britain can lead, but it also involves a truly international approach. Back in 2018, I went to the United Nations alongside Cruelty Free International. We handed over a petition with 8 million signatures from across the world, calling for a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics. I was struck by a couple of things. First, it was hard to find where in the UN the responsibility for that sat; it spans different Departments in the UK, and that is an issue across the world too.

Secondly, we have not yet even managed a global ban on cosmetics testing on animals—only around 45 countries have secured that to date—so we need British leadership on that, as well as on testing for medical procedures. This matters because many of the testing procedures carried out in the UK are done to meet overseas requirements for pharmaceuticals, so it is not something that we can tackle alone. I would be very grateful if the Minister could outline how we are working with our international partners to achieve harmonisation, more international co-operation, consistent frameworks and transparent data exchange.

[Graham Stuart In the Chair]

It is also important that we are positive about our scientists. We abhor it when we see researchers carrying out experiments that we do not think should be done on animals, but we must never be anti-scientist, because it is the scientists who will make sure we have these brand-new methods. We need them, so we have to be relentlessly pro-scientist. I have no doubt that our amazing scientists can rise to this challenge, especially when the Government set out really clear expectations. Together, we can ensure that the UK is at the forefront of innovation and meets the expectations of the public that we serve.