Written questions by Jones.

What assessment she has made of the use of informal hierarchies of animal sentience by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in discharging its duties under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 19

Awaiting answer.

What steps is she taking to (a) reduce the numbers of decapod crustaceans used in scientific procedures and (b) strengthen expertise of these creatures within the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Awaiting answer.

What recent assessment her Department has made of the robustness of the harm-benefit analysis of service licences, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, using a) non-human primates b) pregnant rabbits c) rats d) dogs e) mini-pigs.

All project licence applications, including service licences, are subject to a rigorous harm-benefit analysis (HBA), required under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). The HBA is carried out by a trained Home Office Inspector who is a member of the veterinary or medical profession, to ensure that any harm to animals is justified by the likely benefits for humans, animals or the environment.Under ASPA, projects proposing the use of specially protected species, including non‑human primates and dogs, may only be authorised where no animal of lower sentience can be used to achieve the scientific objectives. In all cases, the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) must be fully applied. This means that animal use is permitted only where no validated alternative exists, the minimum number of animals is used, and the most refined methods are used to minimise harm.

What recent assessment her Department has made of the level of a) pain, b) suffering, c) distress and d) lasting harm caused to dogs covered by service licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

All project licence applications, including service licences which use specially protected species such as dogs and non-human primates, are subject to a rigorous harm-benefit analysis (HBA), required under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). The HBA ensures that a project is only granted where a Home Office Inspector is satisfied that the likely harms to animals, including pain, suffering, distress and any lasting harm, are justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment.Under ASPA, projects proposing the use of specially protected species may only be authorised where no animal of lower sentience can be used to achieve the scientific objectives. In all cases, the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) must be fully applied. This means that animal use is permitted only where no validated alternative exists, the minimum number of animals is used, and the most refined methods are used to minimise harm.The Home Office publishes annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, which break down procedures by species, type of procedure, and actual severity experienced by animals. They are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals. Information on the severity of procedures involving NHPs and dogs is set out in Table 3.1, with severity categorised under ASPA as non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe.Additionally, the Home Office expects to respond to recommendations from the Animals in Science Committee on the use of NHPs in service licences, which is aimed at further strengthening protections for NHPs used in science for service licences.

What recent assessment her Department has made of trends in the level of a) pain, b) suffering, c) distress and d) lasting harm caused to non-human primates recognised by service licences under Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

All project licence applications, including service licences which use specially protected species such as dogs and non-human primates, are subject to a rigorous harm-benefit analysis (HBA), required under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). The HBA ensures that a project is only granted where a Home Office Inspector is satisfied that the likely harms to animals, including pain, suffering, distress and any lasting harm, are justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment.Under ASPA, projects proposing the use of specially protected species may only be authorised where no animal of lower sentience can be used to achieve the scientific objectives. In all cases, the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) must be fully applied. This means that animal use is permitted only where no validated alternative exists, the minimum number of animals is used, and the most refined methods are used to minimise harm.The Home Office publishes annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, which break down procedures by species, type of procedure, and actual severity experienced by animals. They are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals. Information on the severity of procedures involving NHPs and dogs is set out in Table 3.1, with severity categorised under ASPA as non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe.Additionally, the Home Office expects to respond to recommendations from the Animals in Science Committee on the use of NHPs in service licences, which is aimed at further strengthening protections for NHPs used in science for service licences.

What assessment has she made of the potential merits of expanding the Police's right of disclosure to include incidents of animal abuse.

The Police National Computer holds all relevant information for prosecutions made for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Certain organisations, including non-police public bodies such as the Disclosure and Barring Service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, have access to this information, where appropriate to fulfil their public function. This allows us to securely protect this important information from misuse, but also for it to be available for organisations with a justified need to access the information.The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme covers all criminal convictions, and police forces may release information under their police common law powers relating to animal cruelty offences if they think this behaviour would pose a risk to the individual seeking the disclosure. We have committed to exploring the potential to expand the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme through the government's Violence Against Women and Girls strategy (VAWG) to other forms of VAWG.

How many animals were used in LD50 tests to evidence compliance with UK-only regulations in each of the last five years.

The Home Office publishes detailed annual statistics on the use of animals in science, including procedures for acute and subacute toxicity testing which covers tests such as LD50 (Lethal Dose 50) and LC50 (Lethal Concentration 50). These figures represent the total number of procedures carried out in this category each year.The Home Office does not collect information on whether individual procedures were conducted specifically to meet UK only regulatory requirements, so the data is not available in the form requested.Based on the published annual statistics, the total number of procedures in the acute and sub‑acute toxicity category (which includes LD50 and LC50 tests) in each of the last five years is as follows:2024: 11,9922023: 11,5192022: 12,6512021: 11,758Statistics for 2025 have not yet been published. Official statistics on the use of animals in science are released annually and are available here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/animals-in-science-statistics

How many licences were rejected for procedures using the rabbit pyrogen test since the publication of the Replacing Animals in Science strategy.

Since the publication of the Animals in Science Strategy on 11 November the Home Office has not received any applications for licences that seek authorisation for procedures using the rabbit pyrogen test.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a fee for project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 based on the estimated number of procedures and using the funds generated to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods.

This Government has recently announced £75 million of further investment in accelerating the development, validation and uptake of non-animal alternative methods.As set out in the Replacing Animals in Science strategy, published in November 2025, the Government will create a preclinical translational models hub and a UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM).This is in addition to the current funding of the NC3Rs.

What assessment has she made of the potential impact of proposed changes to the rules for indefinite leave to remain on the physiotherapy workforce.

Proposals for introducing an earned settlement model, as set out in the Command Paper “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” (CP1448), were subject to a public consultation, which opened on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026.We are now reviewing and analysing the results of this to inform the development of the final model. The consultation sought views on the impact proposed changes might have on different groups and the case for exemptions for vulnerable groupings. Implementation of the earned settlement arrangements will be subject to economic and equality impact assessments, which we have committed to publish in due course.

Whether physiotherapists will remain eligible for indefinite leave to remain after five years under her Department's proposed changes to migration rules.

Proposals for introducing an earned settlement model, as set out in the Command Paper “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” (CP1448), were subject to a public consultation, which opened on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026.We are now reviewing and analysing the results of this to inform the development of the final model. The consultation sought views on the impact proposed changes might have on different groups and the case for exemptions for vulnerable groupings. Implementation of the earned settlement arrangements will be subject to economic and equality impact assessments, which we have committed to publish in due course.

With reference to Department's transparency data entitled Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Non-technical summaries for project licences granted October – December 2025 that require a retrospective assessment, updated on 5 February 2026, what steps she is taking to ensure that projects are not duplicated in the report.

The Animals in Science Regulation Unit operates a quality checking process to minimise errors in published non-technical summaries (NTS). However, they acknowledge there was a duplication error in the February 2026 NTS publication.The Animals in Science Regulation Unit have corrected a version of the document which will be published shortly. For clarity, all NTS’ were published, the error detected was a duplication.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of a reduction in the number of unannounced audits by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit of establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between 2019 and 2024.

As part of a structured programme of reform, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) is increasing the number of veterinary and medical inspectors from an average of 14.5 in 2023 to 22 in March 2026. This provides additional specialist resource to undertake regulatory assurance activities in the future. However, the number of audits undertaken should not be equated with impact, as the quality, depth and scope of audits are key determinants in the regulatory system.ASRU deploys both announced and unannounced audits to assurance compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and both are important tenets of the regulatory framework. Unannounced audits may be employed where there are specific concerns or potentially higher risks at an establishment. Announced audits can enable inspectors to observe scheduled procedures, speak to relevant staff and ensure that all information required is made available to form a complete assessment of compliance.

What assessment she has made of the numbers of animals being used in tests in order to satisfy international regulators despite a non-animal alternative being accepted in the UK; and what steps is she taking to reduce those numbers.

The Animals in Science Regulation Unit has published guidance for applicants intending to conduct research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for regulated bodies outside the UK, available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/research-and-testing-using-animals (see section entitled ‘Research for regulatory bodies outside the UK’).In summary, where there is a difference between the requested test and the lowest impact test used elsewhere, there must be associated benefit commensurate with allowing the higher impact test for that jurisdiction. This is aligned with the legally binding principle of the implementation of the 3Rs - Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.This Government has recently launched an Alternatives Strategy to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non-animal alternatives. The strategy is backed by £75 million in investment for delivery with plans to establish a UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

If she will consider i) increasing the number of wildlife crimes which are notifiable and ii) improving the consistency of the recording of wildlife crime by police forces.

There are currently no plans to make wildlife crimes notifiable (which would result in them being included in the national crime statistics).Any non-notifiable wildlife crime reported to the police can still be investigated where appropriate, as Chief Constables have operational independence to tackle the crimes that matter most to their communities.

What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of existing penalties on preventing cruelty against wildlife.

There are currently no plans to make wildlife crimes notifiable (which would result in them being included in the national crime statistics).Any non-notifiable wildlife crime reported to the police can still be investigated where appropriate, as Chief Constables have operational independence to tackle the crimes that matter most to their communities.

Whether she plans to review the effectiveness of enforcement of wildlife crimes as part of plans to a) review and b) strengthen penalties for cruelty against wildlife.

There are currently no plans to make wildlife crimes notifiable (which would result in them being included in the national crime statistics).Any non-notifiable wildlife crime reported to the police can still be investigated where appropriate, as Chief Constables have operational independence to tackle the crimes that matter most to their communities.

Whether she intends to publish guidance for (a) the Police and (b) the public on protests outside life science facilities using animals in research.

The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather and to demonstrate their views, provided that they do so within the law.There is no statutory requirement for the Home Office to produce guidance for this instrument. However, the Home Office will work with the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing as the regulations are implemented to ensure forces understand their operational responsibilities.

When she plans to publish the results of the consultation on potential reforms to Section 24 of Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which closed on 13 June 2014.

In 2014, the then Government commenced a public consultation seeking views on section 24, with the aim of increasing openness and transparency. This work was paused due to changes in administration in 2015.Under this Government, the Home Office has been reviewing the matter internally, and the intention to clarify the position on Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 remains, taking account of the previous consultation.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of The Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the ability of (a) students and (b) academics to protest the use of animals in scientific research by universities.

On Thursday 27 November 2025, the Home Office laid an affirmative Statutory Instrument in Parliament to amend Section 7 and Section 8 of the Public Order Act 2023. This will amend the list of key national infrastructure within Section 7 of the Act, to add the Life Sciences sector and define the Life Sciences sector in Section 8 of the Act.The definition of ‘Life Sciences sector’ for the purpose of this legislation to be added to Section 8 of the Act is: “infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research, or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products; or which is used in connection to activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986”.Under Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a person commits an offence if:They do an act which interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales, andThey intend that act to interfere with the use or operation of such infrastructure or are reckless as to whether it will do so.The amendment is designed to address only certain behaviours impacting the Life Sciences sector. It does not ban protests. It specifically targets deliberate or reckless interference with infrastructure within the Life Sciences sector, that could undermine our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic.Whether an activity meets the criminal threshold within Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 will be fact specific and is an operational matter for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, who are all operationally independent from the government.