Animal Testing
1/13I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, for which Animal Free Research provides the secretariat. I am a long-time campaigner in this area, as well as on many other topics relating to animal welfare. It is important to me and many others that animals are replaced in research as soon as possible. The petition, created by Maria Iriart from Camp Beagle, is titled: “End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use”. It reads: “Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans. Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval. In 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.” The petition has attracted almost 121,000 signatures—that is a great achievement, and it is good to see Maria in the Gallery today—of which 121 are from my constituency. I know that people care deeply about this topic and I have received many emails from constituents, as well as from members of the public living in other constituencies. In the past week, many of them have referenced the exposés in The Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror, which showed incredibly disturbing footage of what is going on in UK laboratories. In particular, there were shocking images of long-tailed macaques being force-fed new weight-loss drugs and suffering from extreme distress. It is horrible to think about the pain and torture that innocent animals have to be put through so that humans can be helped to lose weight. It is important to note that those images being circulated are from laboratory sites that are regulated and operating within the law. There are more experiments that I would like to talk about in greater detail, such as testing of anti-inflammation drugs on beagles and of skin treatments on pigs. However, the content is so distressing that I feel it is too disturbing to share during the debate.
We are a nation of animal lovers—my very first Westminster Hall debate was on animal welfare—although, as a constituent pointed out to me, if we love animals so much, we should not need an animal welfare strategy. I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the move towards ending testing on animals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that beagles are used because they are placid is utterly heartbreaking, and that any move to expedite the end of animal testing would be welcomed by many of our constituents?
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. It is important that this issue is dealt with sooner rather than later, and I will say more about that later.
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and making her points very clearly. Like many Members, I have had hundreds of emails encouraging me to take part in the debate, and there is particular concern about the use of dogs. Does she support the calls for Herbie’s law, to stop animal testing by 2035?
I absolutely support Herbie’s law and, as I mentioned, the APPG is supported by Animal Free Research, which hopes to implement it. I agree 100% with the hon. Member. Another extremely cruel test is the forced swim test, for which there are still three licences granted in the UK, lasting until 2028. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy states specifically: “The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders. Animal behaviour in the FST also lacks information on treatment latency and varies across strains and protocols. Therefore, we would expect the Home Office Regulator’s default position to be that the FST does not pass the harm-benefit test required under” the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. To me and many others, it would make complete sense to cancel those licences immediately.
I commend the petition’s signatories for bringing this debate to us. I also commend my hon. Friend, with whom I have been in many debates over the past two years, for all her hard work and advocacy in this area. Does she agree that, although the Government’s strategy to phase out the use of animals in medical research is a very good thing, it is just a step in the right direction on the journey to phasing out the use of animals in medical experimentation completely? Will she also join me in encouraging Members to take forward Herbie’s law as a private Member’s Bill in the new Session, as I have done over the past two years?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I absolutely support the implementation of Herbie’s law sooner rather than later. I welcome the strategy, and I will say more about it later. A year ago tomorrow, I led a debate on a very similar petition entitled “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, which was also created by Maria Iriart. It is clear to me and many others that neither the public nor parliamentarians are letting this issue go.
The whole Petitions Committee, including me, is grateful to the hon. Lady, who is making a very good speech. Although we all care about this matter hugely, I have found from the emails I have received that the younger generation is increasingly unwilling to tolerate this testing at all. I welcome that and find it fascinating, and I see it as a very good shift in society. Does she agree?
I fully agree. I think it is really important that younger people take this cause forward. Earlier today, when I went out to speak to representatives from Camp Beagle, I met a young woman—she is 10—who is really keen that we get it moved forward. I thought that was great. In the petition debate last year and in others since, I have referenced a 1927 debate on the Dogs Protection Bill, in which the surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby was quoted as saying: “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 really sad that nearly 100 years later, dogs continue to be used in this cruel and outdated way.
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a huge issue in my constituency. Does she agree that, given the grave ethical concern that animals used in testing endure immense pain, distress and confinement, and the fact that the scientific validity of such testing is increasingly in doubt, it is time that we prioritised human alternatives and invested in advanced technology to replace animal testing?
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I agree with everything that he said. I will say a bit more about that later on.
I thank the hon. Member for her passionate speech. My constituents are proud of the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare standards, but they struggle to square that with the continued scale of animal testing and the lack of pace of change—as she highlighted, it has been slow for nearly 100 years now. Does she agree that the real question is not whether we can move away from animal testing, but how quickly we are prepared to do so?
I fully agree with everything the hon. Member said. I will go on to say more about that. The petition refers specifically to dogs, as well as other animals that are used in testing. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures in British laboratories used animals—every minute of every day, five animals are used in research in the United Kingdom—over 16,000 experiments were carried out on specially protected species, including cats, dogs, horses and monkeys, and 1,651 dogs were used in experiments.
The hon. Member is being very generous with her time. Dogs have noticeable physiological differences from humans—different enzymes, different gastric pH—which leads to the vast majority of drugs that are tested on them failing to translate to humans. Does she agree, therefore, that the Government should commit to ending the use of dogs, specifically, in testing for human use and provide greater funding for alternatives that are coming through, such as organs on chips?
I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. Member said. I will speak more about organ on a chip and the need to move more quickly towards phasing out animals in research, but there is an opportunity to phase out dogs almost immediately. It is important to note that figures released in the Home Office annual reports cover only animals protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that individual animals can be used many times in different tests. However, the statistics count only the first time an animal is used in an experiment. The real number of experiments every year is likely much higher, as that data is not captured. UK law, in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, already recognises what we all know: that animals have emotions and feelings. The suffering caused to animals subjected to testing is a clear ethical problem, and the effectiveness of the experiments also calls into question the need for the obvious suffering, torture and painful death that many of them endure. Over 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials after passing animal trials, and the failure rate increases to 99.6% for Alzheimer’s disease drugs. To quote Animal Free Research UK: “Animals like monkeys don’t naturally develop Alzheimer’s, or live long enough to study ageing in the same way that humans experience it, so these outdated methods are simply not giving us the answers we need.”
I thank my hon. Friend for her great speech and her great work in this area, and I thank all the residents of my constituency who have signed the petition. I was pleased by the Government’s announcement of a long-term road map to reduce and phase out animal testing in scientific research, with key milestones for the abolition of specific tests, as my hon. Friend said, including an end to skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing on animals this year. Does she agree that we should speed up the timetable as much as possible so that we can end animal testing at the earliest opportunity?
I agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I will say more about that.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. A conflict is sometimes presented between our understandable concerns about animal welfare and good science, but, as she set out, there is no such conflict. The really heartbreaking, frustrating thing is that many of the ongoing experiments that cause animals to suffer are far less rigorous than some of the alternatives that we already know work better but are not yet regulated in the same way. Does she agree that the Government’s road map fires the starting gun to make sure we have regulated alternatives in place as quickly as possible? Will she join me in urging the Government to move as quickly as possible so we can get better, more robust science and protect animals? It is an “and”, not an “or” or an “either”.
I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. I will speak about some of this later on, but I have on occasion met the relevant Minister and we are due to have a meeting soon. At one meeting, I asked specifically that we remove dogs immediately from medical testing. I was very disappointed by the answer, but we need to keep up the momentum on these serious issues. There are alternatives to animal research—known as new approach methodologies, or NAMs—that are constantly being researched and developed. For example, any Members here who attended last year’s Lush Cosmetics event would have seen their soaps depicting organ-on-a-chip technology; they are plastic chips that can mimic human organ and tissues for experimentation. AI is another great and exciting opportunity for replacing animal testing. A software called AnimalGAN, developed by the US Food and Drug Administration, aims to accurately determine how rats would react to chemicals without the need to do new rat tests.
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On cosmetics, does she share my concern about the continued use of botox in the non-surgical aesthetic treatment industry? Botox occupies an unusual, but perhaps not unique position in the market: because it is used for medical purposes, it falls under the medical definition and animal testing is allowed. However, it is increasingly being used in the cosmetics sphere—a loophole that needs to be addressed. For the record, I am wholly opposed to animal testing in all its forms; I believe it should be phased out across the board to the maximum extent possible.
The hon. Member raises an important point; that is not an area that I had considered before, but I absolutely agree. Any of us in this Chamber could go on an afternoon course and tomorrow be injecting people with botox, so his point is valid. Virtual Second Species has created an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historical dog tests. From an economics perspective, it is worth thinking about how much we could save by transitioning from animals to AI. What is the price of our not moving to a more contemporary scientific method, which would be not only kinder, but smarter? Recent research and analysis, commissioned by Lush Cosmetics and undertaken by the Common Sense Policy Group and Northumbria University, shows how much growth potential the sector has. Between 2021 and 2024, the UK’s non-animal methods sector grew rapidly, with turnover rising to more than £1.2 billion and employment increasing year on year.
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time; she is leading the debate excellently. Like many Members, I have been contacted by constituents raising this issue. On Friday, Karen, one of my constituents, talked to me at my coffee morning specifically about the issue of new approach methodologies and their potential to unlock a much more humane approach to testing medicines. My hon. Friend rightly raises AI’s potential to model biological processes. Does she agree that, as the UK is a leader in both the life sciences and AI, with focus, joint Government working and funding we should be able to lead the way in new AI modelling to replace animal testing? That could potentially be a growth story for the country and something we could export internationally to address this issue and finally put an end to animal testing.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the potential to lead the way in this field; that is something we should definitely be striving towards. Through my role as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I have met many scientists working in the animal-free research area, including at XCellR8, the UK’s leading animal-free testing laboratory. There is an untapped market in this area that is ready to grow, and we must invest in it. With the right Government support, the sector could more than double in size by 2030, creating high-skilled jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in producing the next generation of scientists. Licences for animal tests are granted in advance and in bulk. Surely the whole licensing system should be reviewed. Many laboratories do only the minimum checks and balances laid out in law, despite how they might talk about meeting the highest standards. When experiments are poorly designed or mistakes are made during the process, it is a waste of life and unnecessary suffering. There are many examples of that, which I am sure will be discussed today.
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this field. She, like me, is a serious animal lover who has always stood up for animals. Many constituents have contacted me about this debate; their primary reason for doing so is the unnecessary suffering caused to animals in testing, with force-feeding and injections right up to the end of their lives. Does she agree that new technologies offer a way to achieve the goal that people want to see, which is more research, while also avoiding the unnecessary suffering that causes such concern to our constituents?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with every point that has been raised. On a positive note, it is most welcome that this Labour Government have published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy—something that we have never seen from previous Governments. The strategy brings a lot of good news, such as £75 million-worth of funding for the new UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. It also refers to using validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030, and to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetics studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. However, I am unsure how that will be validated, as the number of non-human primates and dogs used for those studies is unknown in the first instance. That creates a statistical challenge, and I would challenge whether those statistics are correct. While it is good news to have a road map, we are not there yet. We need to ensure that the strategy is implemented with robust timelines and a clear road map, so that we can achieve our manifesto commitment of finally phasing out cruel animal testing. On 20 April this year, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it had achieved key first-year goals in implementing its April 2025 road map to reducing animal testing in preclinical safety studies, which includes qualifying the first AI-based drug development tool and working to reduce or eliminate animal testing of drugs, having demonstrated safety through their use in humans in other countries. It is key that the UK continues to be a world leader in animal welfare and to build on our successes such as the new strategy. However, we cannot fall behind other countries such as the US; we should seize this exciting opportunity to utilise groundbreaking new science while saying goodbye to dated and cruel testing. I look forward to the Minister’s response today, and to hearing from other Members.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my role as an officer on the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. The phasing out of animal testing was an eye-catching pledge in the Government’s last manifesto. Although it has been slow in coming, the strategy, published late last year, is the first milestone towards delivering on that intent. It was a year ago that we last discussed animal testing in Parliament. As the Member of Parliament with, sadly, the most animal testing infrastructure, I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving their pledge. In my Huntingdon constituency, there are two sites that are directly involved in pre-clinical animal testing: Labcorp and MBR Acres. I visited Labcorp shortly after being elected as the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. Notably, the issue of animal testing and the prevalence of the sites was never raised during the election campaign, nor during any hustings by any of the candidates; it is almost as if it is not a topic that people are keen to discuss. Following the election, I visited LabCorp to ensure that I understood the nature of the work done there and the challenges of delivering pre-clinical testing for the pharmaceutical industry. I was public about the visit and clearly communicated the experience; I stated that I do not support animal testing but, in order to understand it, I had to meet those who undertake it. I am sure that many of those participating in the debate today or in the Public Gallery will have seen the footage reported in The Mail on Sunday a week ago. I have seen the puppies and macaques in their cages; although they are well looked after, there is an obvious, inevitable outcome, and it is very difficult to watch them—particularly the macaques, with their recognisable human mannerisms, watching Disney cartoons to keep them occupied, coming to the window to have a look at me looking at them—knowing that all those animals will be tested on and will lose their lives. That is the price we currently have to pay the pharmaceutical industry to save life or extend life. Much as we do not like to know where our food comes from, the same could be said for our medicinal drugs. For all the progress made, animal testing is still a key part of the pre-clinical testing process. Although that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon the Government to deliver their pledge as quickly as they can. In December, we saw the Government introduce the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, specifically to curtail protest activity at key national infrastructure sites around the life sciences sector. In Committee, the Minister for Policing and Crime said: “The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.] It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it. It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense. Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified? With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit “identified no critical or major findings, and no low‑level concerns”, identifying only three minor findings involving “a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”. Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally. During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months? Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy. As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions. Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement? In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities? Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform. I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included? Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?
