Animal Testing

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered non-compliance animal testing incidents in laboratories.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. The uncomfortable backdrop of today’s debate is that animal experimentation results in legally sanctioned animal suffering. That is the fact that we must keep at the front of our minds, especially as we pride ourselves on being a nation of animal lovers.

At the 2024 election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. The stark reality, however, is that more than 5 million animals have been approved for use in experiments over the coming years. Behind that large headline figure lie individual cases that are often deeply distressing, such as primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery. That said, the focus of this debate is not on the legality of licences, contentious though they might be, but on what happens when even the limited legal protections are not upheld. In the current system, legally sanctioned animal suffering is compounded by systemic regulatory failure.

On 12 December 2025, the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit—ASRU—published its 2024 annual report, which provides a window into the shocking suffering that occurs when our animal testing safeguards fail.

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

Reports have shown animals accidentally crushed in a compacter, a primate dying after being trapped in a cage unnoticed, animals falling out of a vehicle and being lost, and many dying of thirst or hunger or drowning in flooded cages. Does my hon. Friend agree that those cases of non-compliance are unacceptable, that more must be done to avoid them happening in future and that the people who allow them to happen must face the consequences?

[Michael Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and of course I agree.

ASRU is tasked with licensing animal experiments and, importantly, ensuring compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The reason for the Act is to protect animals and to require the use of non-animal alternatives wherever scientifically possible, yet the report shows far too many incidents in which animals were harmed, injured or killed because licence conditions were breached or basic standards were not met. These are not minor administrative errors. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) said, we are talking about animals drowning, starving to death, being left to die without veterinary care or being accidentally disposed of as waste.

In 2024 alone, there were 146 recorded cases of non-compliance in British laboratories. Although that figure represents a modest but welcome decrease from the previous year, the incidents still involve more than 22,000 animals. Analysis from Animal Free Research UK suggests that at least 542 animals either died or were euthanised as a direct result of those failures.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I have also worked alongside Animal Free Research on these issues, including to introduce a private Member’s Bill representing its version of Herbie’s law. As my hon. Friend says, incidents of non-compliance in 2024 involved 22,204 animals. Does he agree with me that the Government’s recent “Replacing animals in science” strategy sets out a pathway for elimination in certain areas, but that in reality we should also still be enforcing compliance across the sector, and where possible, as with Herbie’s law, moving further than we are at the moment?

[Michael Wheeler]

Of course. It will surprise my hon. Friend not at all that I agree. I will come to the wider context and wider solutions, but at this time, although we can look to improve the situation, we must absolutely look to make sure that current regulations are enforced as we speak, and not let slide, because there have been hundreds of animals whose suffering breached the current legal framework and should have been prevented.

Some of the most disturbing incidents involve something as basic as access to food and water. In 2024, there were nine separate cases in which animals were not provided with adequate food or hydration, and 24 animals died as a result. In another case, a mother was removed from her cage and killed, leaving seven unweaned pups to starve to death. The report catalogues a litany of serious failures. Animals were reused, in second experiments, without proper authorisation. Others were kept alive past what most people would consider a humane end point. They were left to suffer as tumours grew too large, or body weight fell dangerously low. In one case, misidentification of sex led to regulated procedures being performed on seven pregnant mice.

The failures affect a wide range of animals. Primates suffered injuries from faulty equipment, had tails trapped in cage doors or were left without food overnight. A freedom of information request revealed that in one case an incident deemed by ASRU to be a “minor breach” involved a dog being kept alive despite having suffered severe swelling of the parotid salivary glands as a result of the procedures that it had been through, before eventually being euthanised.

Given the gravity of the incidents, we should expect robust enforcement. Instead, we see a regulatory regime that is alarmingly weak. In three quarters of non-compliance cases, the only response was “inspector advice”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He is bringing forward some very harrowing stories, and they are certainly hard to accept. Non-compliance with animal welfare laws on farms in Northern Ireland was detected in more than 21% of those inspected. It is clear that welfare inspection is the key to making them acknowledge the regulations and to ensuring that they do what they should be doing. Does the hon. Member agree that non-compliance is best detected through inspection and that there must be more focus on inspection rates, to ensure that issues can be dealt with?

[Michael Wheeler]

I of course agree, and I have some information that will illustrate the point and the importance of inspections. In 2024, just 68 establishments were audited across Great Britain. Only 10 of the inspections were unannounced. That represents just 15% of inspections, which is down from 63% of inspections in 2018. The issue is further exacerbated by some elements of those audits being carried out remotely. Nearly 70% of non-compliance incidents were self-reported, which raises a troubling question about how much more is going undetected in the absence of regular, independent spot checks.

ASRU’s current regime of regulatory reform includes increasing the number of inspectors by March to 22 full-time equivalents, up from 14.5, but incremental tweaks to oversight will not solve the underlying problem. In 2024 alone, 2.64 million scientific procedures were carried out on animals. That scale of activity cannot be meaningfully overseen through marginal staffing increases.

The wider issue is that we continue to allow legally sanctioned animal suffering. For instance, some licences permit deliberate deprivation. Primates’ entire daily food intake can be restricted so that food can be used as a reward for correct task performance during sessions lasting up to six hours. Rats, meanwhile, can go without water for up to 22 hours a day, over a week, to encourage them to consume liquids containing potentially aversive substances. Thousands of procedures still rely on controversial tests such as LD50 toxicity testing and the forced swim test—an outdated model that the Government acknowledge has limited scientific value. Licence summaries reveal the severity of authorised suffering: thousands of animals undergo painful procedures without analgesia because pain relief might interfere with the results.

Equally concerning is the failure to uphold the core legal principle at the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 2A is clear that scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods must be used wherever possible, yet an expert report commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research identified a “system-wide failure” to replace animals where alternatives already exist. Home Office summaries show that licences have been granted even when non-animal methods are clearly available. In one example, animals were being used as an intermediary step in heart disease research, despite well-known anatomical differences that limit the relevance of that research to humans.

It is time for us to find another way. More than 92% of drugs that succeed in animal tests do not end up being used by patients. That is primarily due to poor efficacy and safety issues that were not predicted by animal testing. We are now at the point where human-specific technologies, using human cells, tissues, artificial intelligence and advanced modelling, offer faster, safer and more relevant results. Pioneering work projects have been taking place for decades, leading to breakthroughs such as mini-hearts that accurately model human cardiac disease without harming animals.

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; he is making a powerful case, and a very traumatic one. Does he agree that if we are really to fulfil our 2024 manifesto commitment and enable a transition to more modern, human-specific technology, we should introduce Herbie’s law without delay?

[Michael Wheeler]

I think it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I do agree with him, and I will be making that very call.

We are in a good place when it comes to the development of alternatives. I therefore welcome the publication of the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy in November.

[Irene Campbell]

I should have said this earlier, but I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence is there, and that we can move much more quickly towards a place where animals are no longer needed in research?

[Michael Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for another valuable intervention. I agree with her.

The Government’s strategy contains a range of positive measures, such as increasing funding for human-specific technologies, but we can move faster—more, we have an opportunity to grow the strategy by supporting cutting-edge, world-leading new technologies that are developed right here in the UK. I urge the Government to go further. I urge them to commit to the replacement of all animals in medical research in the UK by 2035. As colleagues have said, that is known as Herbie’s law, after a beagle bred for the laboratory but saved before he was used.

Herbie’s law would provide a practical, collaborative pathway to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to phase out animal testing. It would set a clear ambition to replace animal experiments in medical research over the next decade. It would establish expert oversight and support scientists through the transition. It has been carefully drafted by legal experts, is backed by more than 155 of our colleagues here in Parliament and enjoys strong public support.

The non-compliance incidents detailed in the ASRU report and the fact that those incidents regularly cause serious animal suffering in this country should shock us and prompt reflection and action. Ultimately, the only way to eliminate those incidents completely is to end animal testing once and for all. We need a research and innovation system that is scientifically excellent, ethically robust and animal-free. I urge the Government to strengthen enforcement, ensure the law is upheld in practice, and deliver a clear, timeframed road map to phase out animal testing.

Crime and Policing Bill

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

I therefore urge my colleagues to support the new clauses.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of the trade union USDAW.

I rise to support new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was proud to campaign for many years alongside retail workers as part of USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which successfully highlighted the epidemic of abuse and violence faced by retail workers and brought together workers, employers and sectoral bodies. For years there has been consensus outside this place that something needs to be done, but here there has been no consensus. Warm words did not lead to the necessary action from the last Government. The sacrifices made by retail workers during the pandemic were quickly forgotten, and given that the latest figures from USDAW show that one in 10 retail workers and one in eight delivery drivers have been assaulted at work in the past 12 months, it is well past time for us all to remember that these are frontline workers providing a vital service. That is why the introduction of a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker is so vital and so welcome.

Too many workers have suffered life-changing injuries while simply trying to enforce the law or provide a service. Upholding age-restricted sales is a key part of their role, bringing with it unique challenges. It is not a small responsibility, but a legal duty that often acts as a flashpoint for abuse. Failure to comply carries serious consequences for the worker, including disciplinary action or prosecution. We in this Chamber put that duty on them, we hold them accountable, and we need to give them the protection that they deserve. The new stand-alone offence will provide a clear deterrent, give prosecutors better tools, and send a powerful message to offenders that abuse will not be tolerated.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting the new clause and for signing it, along with other Members. Does he agree that our hard-working delivery drivers in the freight and logistics sector also need such backing, given that they often face attacks at knifepoint while delivering what our country needs?

[Michael Wheeler]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I do not need to interrupt my speech, because I am about to deal with exactly that point. New clause 48 would create a specific offence along similar lines to cover delivery workers, which is incredibly welcome. These workers deserve protection just as much as in-store staff. They, too, are required to enforce the law and conduct age checks, and this Bill places additional requirements on them regarding the delivery of knives. But unlike in-store staff, they carry out their work without the safety net of colleagues, security or familiar surroundings. As is the case in Scotland following the passage of the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, home delivery drivers must be included. It is only right that delivery workers in England and Wales receive equal protection, which must not stop at the shop door.

We should never underestimate the important contributions of retail workers. They serve our communities, bring essentials to our doors and keep the nation fed. Without them, the country would grind to a halt. New clause 48 provides the opportunity to give retail workers the protection they so obviously deserve, and I urge hon. Members to take that opportunity and to send a clear message from this place that abuse is not part of the job.

[Esther McVey]

I rise to support new clause 144, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). On Monday, the Government hastily came to the House to deliver yet another U-turn and to announce a national inquiry into rape gangs. It is apparent that this U-turn was forced on them, because whenever any member of the public or Member of Parliament said that they wanted a national inquiry, the response from the Government was that they were “far right”, “jumping on a bandwagon” or even blowing a “dog whistle”—those were the words used by Ministers on the Front Bench.

This was a hasty U-turn. In fact, those on the Government Front Bench were somewhat taken aback, as it appears that the Prime Minister had appointed Baroness Casey of Blackstock in the hope that the whole thing would go away and that the inquiry would not happen. She said that she changed her mind because of the weight of evidence that confronted her. Her words were, “I think I have surprised people in Downing Street and beyond.” She did, and the clincher was that the local inquiries were inadequate, because local authorities could decide whether they were going to commission an inquiry and the Government would not intervene. She also said that of the five local inquiries, only one came forward—that was in Oldham. There was reluctance from local areas to face up to the facts and to accept their failings. Denial ran through absolutely everything.

Denial is like a poisonous thread: it weaves its way through all public bodies, strangles the truth and stops justice coming forward. It is essential that an investigation is held into all the failings of the police, local authorities, prosecutors, charities and political parties. The Prime Minister himself was in denial until Saturday, when the U-turn was forced upon him. He often brandishes his credentials as the former director of public prosecutions, and in 2014 he penned an article for the Guardian in which he acknowledged that there were at least 1,400 victims, but he did nothing until the U-turn was forced upon him.

We need to ask questions about the statutory inquiry, because the public need to know the answers. Who will chair the inquiry? What type of inquiry will it be? It already seems to have been watered down. Will it be independent, a national inquiry or, as it now seems, a national commission? What are the terms of reference? It is not good enough to say that we will hear “in due course”. What are the inquiry’s powers? That is unclear. Will there be judicial powers to subpoena people to give evidence?