Animal Testing

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[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?

[Johanna Baxter]

Mo Meowlam!

[Ian Murray]

Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.

Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?

[Ian Murray]

We will write to my hon. Friend with the details on those individual projects—the regulations are run by the Home Office, so I will write to her on those three specific issues and make sure that everyone in the Chamber has a copy.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said that the scale of the suffering prevented should overwhelmingly outweigh the suffering involved in testing. I think we would all agree with that. That is exactly the proportionate way in which we need to look at the issue. It is undeniable that huge pharmaceutical and medical progress has been made on the back of animal testing—the covid vaccine was a good example of alleviating suffering—but he is right to challenge us on that moral issue. That is why the strategy is in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) is right that replacing animals in testing is the right thing to do and that the public want to see action. We agree; that is why we are taking action. The strategy should seed that innovation. It is not just about the Government saying, “This is what we want to achieve.” Hopefully, the industry and innovation will seed that through. We have seen that with other advancements, such as the ban on cosmetics testing that my hon. Friend talked about. Hopefully, that will seed industry to move forward and find innovative ways through, backed by the Government strategy.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), listed the advances in life science innovation; that is tremendous progress, but we need to go further and faster to move away from animal testing. He posed that challenge and we agree with him. He also made the important point that we have a strict regulatory environment for animal testing in this country. I will come on to that in my conclusion, but it is one of strictest in the world, and rightly so.

The hon. Member rightly challenged us by pointing out the danger that if we were to cut animal testing off now, it would go overseas, and in that case we would see a whole raft of additional animals suffering in places that do not have the same standards. That is not to diminish the issue. While we have testing in this country and regulate it to those standards, we should be making sure that the standards are met, notwithstanding all the issues that have been raised by Members today. However, there is a real danger that if we were to cut that off now, without alternatives in place, it would go overseas—an issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), also raised.

We will have to come back to the hon. Member for Winchester on dual licensing for veterinary use. There is an issue with the way in which animal testing works with regard to the licensing arrangements that he set out. Animal testing is also used for the veterinary side of medicines and advancements in technology, and we must be cognisant of that.

I appreciate the tone in which the shadow Minister spoke. There has been a lot done in this area; many Members have mentioned the word “pace”, and that is what we want to see, but the previous Government took a number of actions. Is a 35% reduction by 2030 achievable? We think it is. Many would say that that is not ambitious enough and some would say that it is too ambitious, but we do want to achieve it. That is why the strategy is in place, and why money is a key part of it.

Using animals in science requires us to adhere continually to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That is reflected in the UK’s world-leading, robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. Those requirements are known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, as we have discussed.

Dogs are a specifically protected species under ASPA. Projects must justify why animals are needed, why dogs specifically are needed, and why the numbers and procedures are necessary. Projects are only authorised where that justification is robust. The e-petition rightly mentions the conditions in which dogs are kept, and I want to address those claims—not to dismiss them, but to show that the regulatory system in the UK works. The UK has some of the most stringent regulations in the world governing how animals are bred, housed and cared for, with legally enforceable standards, regular announced and unannounced inspections, and a clear requirement to minimise pain, suffering and distress.

The use of animals in science is highly regulated. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to replace the use of animals completely. For now, animal testing and research plays an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals—for example, the development of the covid-19 vaccine.

Many Members have mentioned failure rates. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. The petition points out that 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval. However, to say that 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals is to ignore all those candidate drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable to progress to human trials. That is the issue that we are trying to resolve. Animal studies are only one part of a layered system that screens out unsafe or ineffective substances before they ever reach volunteers and patients.

Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the MHRA; that is another international issue we have to resolve. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. The key proposal in the petition calls for the end of testing on dogs and other animals for the development of products for human use.

None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated in this country. However, an immediate prohibition would undermine the UK’s ability to test and regulate new medicines and vaccines for humans and, indeed, for the animals themselves. We would be unable to meet our international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, which would prevent virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK from happening, compromise our capacity to respond rapidly to future health threats, result in slower access to new treatments for UK patients and slow the innovation required to remove animal testing altogether. That is the key challenge that we are seeking to achieve with the strategy.

We want a future where animals are used only in very exceptional circumstances and we are acting as fast as we can to get there through the “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its delivery. We will keep driving the shift to validated alternative methods wherever possible, while maintaining the robust protections that keep people, animals and the environment safe in the meantime. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate; I am sure we will have many more in the future, and I look forward to working together as the strategy progresses.