Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

16:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Let me begin by declaring an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—I am keen to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later. The petition, entitled, “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, was created by Maria Iriart, and as of today has almost 236,000 signatures, which is an incredible achievement. Maria is here today, and I thank her for coming along. The petition goes on to say: “As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment. In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog’s throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.” When looking at Hansard for other debates on animal testing—particularly testing on dogs—I found an interesting starting point in a debate in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill. In that debate from almost a century ago, Lord Banbury was mentioned as quoting the eminent surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby, who said: “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.] Yet, here we are, nearly 100 years later, discussing the very same issue. An opinion poll conducted for the UK Government by Ipsos MORI in 2018 found that only 14% of the UK public feel that it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research to benefit people. This is unsurprising, as we know that dogs have high emotional and intellectual capabilities, and studies have found that they can feel empathy, sense sadness or fear and demonstrate genuine human bonding. The UK Home Office regulator is intended to conduct assessments of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections, and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. To enforce the regulations, establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including vets, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, as well as an ethical review body. The Government responded to the petition on 5 March 2025 to clarify that they do not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. However, hopefully this debate will reignite that discussion and subsequent decisions.

I was visited by my constituent Clara, who brought this issue to my attention, and I was keen to participate in today’s debate. My hon. Friend has made two important points: one of which is that this process has no legislative basis and no public consent. I therefore hope that, when the Government listen to this debate, we can look at how to take action to ensure that man’s best friend is left alone as man’s best friend.

I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. It is important to note that the Labour manifesto pledge commits the Government to “partner with scientists, industry, and civil society” to phase out animals in medical testing. The Government also state: “This is a long-term goal, and it will need further scientific and technical advancement and validation to reach this point”. The group Understanding Animal Research supports the use of animal research currently in the UK. It says: “In the UK, dogs are primarily used to find out how new drugs act within a whole, living body and whether new medicines are safe enough to test in humans…Their genome has been sequenced and…they are often used in genetic studies…Dogs are primarily used in regulatory research” and as a secondary species, alongside rodents. The dogs are mostly tested for areas such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, anti-rabies vaccines, heart research and veterinary medicine. Understanding Animal Research also states: “Research dogs live in large enclosures together with their pack mates. Lab technicians look after the dogs and play with them every day. The dogs are fed and watered daily, and the environment (lights, temperature etc.) is controlled automatically. The cages are cleaned daily, and the space is big enough to have a toilet area separate from the bed and play area. Dogs are intelligent enough to keep these areas separate, and there’s plenty of space to allow them to do so. Because the dogs live together, their social needs are met by other dogs. Unlike pets, they do not require the constant company of humans.” However, Animal Free Research UK disputes that quality of care and says: “Applications for project licences to conduct animal experiments are very rarely refused. Answers to Written Questions”— submitted in Parliament— “indicate that over the past seven years, only one licence application has been rejected.”

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. This morning I met Nutmeg, a lovely beagle. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a large proportion of the dogs who undergo medical scientific procedures are beagles—I believe 3,565 out of 3,770? Does she also agree that, if the Government will not commit right now to an immediate ban, we must at least have a clear timeframe for when such a ban may come into place?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Animal Research UK continued: “Applicants are allowed to adjust and re-submit licence applications to enable them to be granted (for the last four years applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted).” The Animals in Science Regulation Unit’s 2023 annual report stated that there were 169 cases of non-compliance with the law or licence conditions—only a 3% decrease from 2022. Those cases involved a total of 154,904 animals, representing an overwhelming 864% increase on 2022. Beagles were used in a study conducted by AstraZeneca to test a new, more eco-friendly propellant for use in inhalers. The tests lasted up to 39 weeks and involved 72 beagles. The dogs were restrained by a tether and forced to inhale the gas for two hours each day through a mask fitted over their nose and mouth, which was held in place by a muzzle. Although the study states that the dogs had freely available access to water, it also states that water was withheld during the tests and for 16 hours overnight. That meant that the dogs went without water for at least 18 hours each day. At the end of the study, all the dogs were killed so that their tissues could be dissected for further study. The authors noted that the inhalers contribute only a small fraction of global hydrofluoroalkane emissions, so was that treatment of the dogs really justified? In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing the 1.81 million additional animals were bred but not used for scientific procedures in Britain, but we had no additional data since then. Those 1.81 million animals included 97 beagles, but we have no idea what happened to those that were not used.

We are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public support for setting out a road map for ending the use of animal testing, so that the very sad stories that she is describing can be left in the history books, where they belong?

I fully agree, and I will speak a little about that later. Modern, non-animal methods give the best possible chance of securing medical progress, since they are not hampered by translating from one species to another. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they had passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Just over 30% of those that pass are subsequently re-labelled with warnings of side effects not predicted by animal tests, and almost 10% are completely withdrawn from the market. New non-animal methods, based directly on human biology, include the use of computer modelling and organ-on-a-chip technology, which can be much more relevant to the human body. I went on lab trip recently with the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research to visit the Animal Replacement Centre of Excellence at Queen Mary University of London, and I saw in person the pioneering work that is being done to provide medical breakthroughs without the use of animals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the scientific possibility of non-animal alternatives and what is happening on the ground? For decades, there have been suggestions of ways that we can use non-animal alternatives, yet we are not using them. Will she also commend the work of Cruelty Free International, which is producing a new list that explains exactly how we could switch from one type of experiment to the other?

I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute. A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs. Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses. Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs. The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding “represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.”

On that point, the previous Government committed to doubling investment in this area. Would my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the current Government matching that, if not improving on it?

I fully agree. Surely, we must consider reversing our priorities. This debate provides us with a prime opportunity to look at how to fund future testing in the UK. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed: “There is no United Kingdom legislation that mandates animal testing.” The regulatory guidelines do recommend that new drugs are tested on two species before moving to human trials, but the Department also stated that assessors will accept “data from a suitably validated model that has been demonstrated to be predictive…in lieu of animal data.” So it is possible. In 2023, almost all regulatory tests on dogs were carried out to satisfy EU requirements, and only 12 were carried out to satisfy UK-only requirements. Cruelty Free International reports that animal tests continue to be commonly used even when validated alternatives exist. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has released a new road map to reduce and replace animal testing in drug development and regulation, following the 2022 decision by the US Congress to pass the FDA Modernisation Act, which facilitates the use of non-animal methods for drug testing. On 10 April this year, the FDA announced that it is beginning to phase out animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies, which will ultimately be followed by other drugs. Canada, Australia and European Union countries have all come up with road maps for ending animal testing; it really is high time for the UK to join them. For the Government to stop issuing licences for experiments using dogs there must be a thorough overhaul of the licensing of animal experiments to ensure that the basic legal requirements to use non-animal methods wherever possible are properly enforced. Ending the use of dogs can be the first step in full transition to the cutting-edge human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress. As I close, I want to mention this morning’s Radio 4 “Today” programme, where Understanding Animal Research and Cruelty Free International discussed this debate. A question asked during the interview was about what happens to dogs after the research. It was confirmed that they are euthanised and dissected to look at their lived experience. Strangely, after that hard-hitting discussion on the lives of laboratory dogs in the “Today” interview, just after the 9 am news the announcer advised that the programme coming up at 9.45 am, called “Wheels and woofs”, would look at disabled dogs living their best lives—something that a laboratory dog will never get to do. I look forward to hearing from other Members and to hearing the Minister’s comments.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call John Milne.

16:46:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to speak in this very important debate. Every year, thousands of dogs are subjected to scientific experiments in the UK, often in the name of drug development. For many this raises serious ethical questions about the use of animals for human gain. Is an animal’s suffering worth the benefits to scientific discovery? For others, science and not the animals are paramount; the end justifies the means, as it were. However, animal testing does not deliver robust and useful scientific data. In fact, drug research on dogs tells us very little about whether a drug will work for humans, so campaigners argue that it is time to end animal research. Dr Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist, put it plainly: different species react differently to diseases and treatments. In other words, what works in dogs might not work in humans. In fact, drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials 92% of the time—a staggering and costly statistic. In toxicity testing, even when dogs show no toxic response it barely improves our confidence that the drug will be safe in humans. It improves it from 70% to just 72%, which is barely noticeable. Is that really a sound basis for human medicine? Fortunately, science offers us a better path forward. Human-specific technologies such as organ chips are revolutionising drug development. Those miniaturised organs mimic how real human organs react to treatments and can be patient-specific. They have shown 87% accuracy in detecting drug-induced liver toxicity, which is a dramatic improvement over animal models. If adopted widely, these tools could create over $24 billion through research and development in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration has recognised that. Through the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, the agency has removed the legal requirement for animal testing in drug trials. A third Act is already in the works to accelerate the validation and adoption of human-specific methods such as organ chips. In the UK we are lagging behind, not because of legal barriers, but perhaps because of entrenched industry habits, financial interests or even cultural resistance in the research community. We can change that—gradually, responsibly and strategically. I am calling for a phased approach to end the use of dogs in UK research. That means increased investment in modern human-relevant alternatives and a national commitment to shifting away from outdated animal models. When the practice of animal testing is scientifically flawed, it is also undeniably ethically indefensible. Animal suffering for unreliable and inapplicable data cannot be justified when we have the tools and knowledge to do better. Let the UK be a leader, not a follower, in creating a more humane and effective future for our scientific research.

16:49:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this petition and the 478 Exeter residents who have signed it. I will speak in support of phasing out the use of dogs in medical research, because the scientific case for change is now overwhelming. Members may know that I have a private Member’s Bill—the Animals in Medical Research (Prohibition) Bill—on phasing out the use of animals in medical research, and I very much support the petition. My Bill is the first of its kind to be laid before Parliament, and I am proud to bring it to the House. I approach this topic from a position of scientific rigour. It is clear that the use of animals in medical research does not necessarily offer the best scientific basis for medicines testing. According to Animal Free Research UK, more than 92% of drugs that pass animal tests, including tests on dogs, go on to fail in human trials. That is an extraordinary figure and means that, far from protecting human health, animal testing is giving us a false sense of security and can slow down medicines development. It is inefficient and it is generating bad science. Animal trials often fail to identify side effects in humans, for example. Although dogs are closer to humans than rodents are, they are still fundamentally different from us in key biological ways. Comprehensive analysis has found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans; it can be no better than tossing a coin. Crucially, there is no law saying we must use dogs. As has been said, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed in 2023 that, while international guidelines suggest testing on two species, including dogs is not a legal requirement. We continue largely out of habit, not necessity; when I asked some of our larger pharma companies whether they have a strategy for reducing the use of animal testing and experimentation overall, some said that there is no strategy, but that they do have some principles. It is clear that the Government need to act in this space. We have better options. Cutting-edge methods such as organ-on-a-chip technology and 3D human tissue models, supplemented by the use of AI-enabled modelling, are far more accurate in predicting how drugs will behave in people. Investing in such technologies would make drug development faster, safer and ultimately far more effective. I have seen for myself how the techniques can be applied to science. In Exeter, we have an Animal Free Research UK centre of excellence at our research, innovation, learning and development centre, jointly operated by a hospital trust and the University of Exeter. Those researchers excel in using animal-free methods in scientific exploration—specifically on cell ageing, which has already generated several start-up companies out of that centre. That is cutting-edge science; this is exactly where we ought to be as a country. Investing in such areas of science, instead of relying on old methods involving millions of animals every year, will mean that the UK can lead the world in this area of scientific innovation. Indeed, the UK may already be falling behind internationally, which is a travesty for a nation of animal lovers. In April, as has been said, the US FDA announced it would move away from animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs, which would be replaced “with more effective, human-relevant methods.” The FDA went on to state: “The new approach is designed to improve drug safety and accelerate the evaluation process, while reducing animal experimentation, lowering research and development (R&D) costs, and ultimately, drug prices.” One reason the FDA gives for that move is to provide global leadership in regulatory science, in which it “reaffirms its role as a global leader in modern regulatory science, setting new standards for the industry and encouraging the adoption of innovative, humane testing methods.” There we go: if the US can move in that direction, it is imperative that the UK does so too. Our life sciences sector simply should not be left behind in cutting-edge science. My private Member’s Bill is based on the campaign for Herbie’s law, which offers a clear, responsible plan to phase out the use of dogs and other animals over the next decade. It is a measured but vital step towards a future where science serves both human health and humane values. I commend the Science Minister, Lord Vallance, for meeting me and others to set out his work in this area, particularly the ongoing development of a strategy document that, I understand, is set to be published soon and will set out a road map for phasing out animal testing in medical research where possible. That strategy is long overdue and is evidence, I hope, that this Labour Government take this issue seriously. I encourage the Minister and the Government to choose progress. Let us choose science that actually works for patients, for innovation and for compassion.

16:54:00

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the petitioners for securing this important debate, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her excellent opening remarks. I am delighted to see so many Members from her party here to support her; I rise as a Member of an opposition party, but as a member of the APPG I fully support her position. I regret that apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), there is no one from the Conservative party in the Chamber. I would not dare suggest that they are not dog lovers—perhaps they are out walking their dogs on this beautiful day. My wife and I share our home with Lola, our beautiful cockapoo. I say share—I would not dare say that we owned her. We share our home. We just spent Easter ensuring that she did not make off with any of our chocolate Easter eggs; I know they are a guilty pleasure of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. Along with the 50% of families across these islands who have pets, I can readily see the contradiction in medical experimentation on dogs when so many of us understand the love, intelligence and friendship that our pet dogs bring to our lives—yet we seem content to inflict great suffering on them. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, many comprehensive studies demonstrate that experiments on animals, including dogs, cannot accurately and fully predict whether new drugs will be safe for humans. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, statistics for 2023 tell us that 3,749 procedures were conducted on dogs in laboratories, 69% of which were to test the safety of products and devices for human medicine, human dentistry and veterinary medicine. However, as there is a huge question mark over the reliability of the tests and the human relevance of their outcomes, it is understandable that there is massive support for the banning of experimentation on dogs in the UK. In fact, not a month goes by where I so not receive emails on that topic in my inbox. The Labour Government have confirmed that they aim to phase out animal testing and will publish proposals later this year, I believe, but they have not committed to an immediate ban on the use of dogs, which is what the petition calls for. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Some exciting—no, amazing—work in this field is happening in the UK, and it needs to be supported and celebrated. As a member of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I recently visited Animal Free Research UK’s animal replacement centre of excellence at the Blizzard institute at Queen Mary University of London to learn more about its groundbreaking work into how cancer spreads using animal-free methods. Doctors showed us how they are revolutionising human skin testing, which is already providing better results for patients without using animals, as well as the development of animal-free next generation 3D tissues and disease models for use in biomedical research. In other words, they grow the tissue in the lab, and they do not need to use dogs. Other truly transformative animal-free methods are available, for example, using computer modelling, which can provide results directly relevant to humans. Herbie’s law, as recommended by Animal Free Research UK, argues for a decade of change, and would mandate the replacement of animals in medical research in the UK by 2035, replacing them with humane, effective alternatives. There is support for that from within the Labour party, largely thanks to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and his private Member’s Bill. When the UK Government say that they are partnering with scientists, industry and civic society in working towards phasing out animal testing, I hope they will also consult with animal protection groups on that goal. The Government have also agreed to publish an alternative methods strategy to support phasing out animal testing, so I hope they will read up on Herbie’s law in that process, ahead of publication later this year. If the Government’s goal, however, is to be at the forefront of an alternative methods revolution, bringing in a commitment to a ban on experiments on dogs would send a clear signal of intent and be a major milestone in the important phasing out of animal testing. That does not need to happen in 10 years—or even in five. This Government could commit to the full implementation of Herbie’s law by the end of this Parliament.

16:59:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank all the petitioners and the people of Swindon North who have signed it, as well as the growing number of citizens across the UK who believe that dogs should not be used in science. We are a country of animal lovers; we love our dogs; and we are going past a point where they should be used for experiments. Some may argue that dogs have a similar biology to humans, but there is still no guarantee of accurate data. Putting it simply, it is not worth the risk. Dogs do not have their own voice, so it is up to us to speak for them. Personally, I would like to see a future using AI technologies such as organ on a chip, which can mimic the structures and functions of human tissues or organs in the lab, and virtual models that are changing how we do medical research. They are already helping to reduce the need for animals in testing and, in some cases, starting to replace them fully. AI systems now allow researchers to track animal behaviour more precisely, which is reducing the number of animals required to extract more meaningful data. In the United States, the FDA has already begun to phase out animal testing, replacing it with more human-relevant models such as AI-driven toxicity screening and organoids. I think it is a rule of thumb that, if the United States is starting to do better in animal welfare than us, we probably need to take a hard look in the mirror, because something has gone wrong. The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this. We have a chance to be a world leader. We have a chance to excel in AI and to boom off its growth. AI technology still requires trials and testing before it can be officially approved. However, when the health and lives of dogs are on the line, is it really fair only to use potential data to make it more accurate? The opportunity for the UK to lead in this field and become a global leader is immense. There is no reason that we as the Government should not push forward and make progress. Our Government and Labour are keen to accelerate the adoption of non-animal testing methods, and this debate is exactly the mechanism to push that forward. Once again, I thank the people who started this petition and those who have signed it. I hope that the Government listen and start to put an end to and phase out the use of testing on dogs.

17:01:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank everyone who signed this petition—it is a huge achievement to get a debate here in Parliament—and in particular one of my friends, Steph Jones-Giles, who has been a passionate campaigner for animal-free research for years. She has been contacting me for years about this issue specifically. My partner Emma and I have a dog called Frank. He is quite an unusual-looking dog. He is a pug cross border terrier, and he is 15 years old today—I have had an update of him in Pets at Home, choosing his new toy. Thankfully, in 15 years, he has not worked out that I am a vet, because he hates going to the vet—he has no idea. I should also point out that Jennie, who is present today, the guide dog for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), had her sixth birthday just last week. My reason for bringing that up is that no one thinks it is stupid to celebrate a dog’s birthday. We know that dogs have the same range of emotions that people do. We also know that they are—well, I was going to say “hugely intelligent”, but hon. Members have not met Frank—relatively intelligent, and we certainly know that they feel pain, need to have social interaction, just like us, and need the freedom to express natural behaviour.

I share a love of dogs with my hon. Friend, and I have a nearly 17-year-old terrier at home—slightly better looking than Frank, I might add. The level of public interest in this petition is vast—many of my constituents have spoken to me strongly about it—and that shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the transposition of the principle of animal sentience into British law is an essential step in ensuring that the UK retains the highest animal welfare standards in the future?

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, which was going to be my next one. It is completely accurate. The veterinary profession has been extremely concerned by the lack of recognition of animal sentience in law. We urge the Government to change that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend said that Frank was ugly.

I didn’t!

He is unique; he is a pug cross border terrier. He has a strange underbite and quite buggy eyes. We were at our friend’s house for dinner recently, and one of their children said, “Frank’s really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that because he might’ve been in an accident.” I would like to introduce the concept of one health, which many people will have heard of. It is the fact that human and animal health are completely interlinked, whether we are talking about antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics, food security or climate change. There is also the concept of one medicine, which has been driven forward by the Humanimal Trust, based primarily on the work of academics at the University of Surrey’s school of veterinary medicine. We are really pushing not only for animal experimentation to be reduced, refined and replaced by other methods, such as those that hon. Members have mentioned today, but to ensure that when these tests are carried out, humans and animals can benefit from the information gathered. For example, if a drug passes animal trials and then passes human trials, it still does not have a licence for animals, even when we know that the drug worked in those animal trials. It is often cost-prohibitive for companies to then carry out the further trials to produce the body of evidence needed to get the licence for animals. Equally, if a drug passes animal trials but fails human trials, there should be a quick and easy way to make it available for veterinary use, so that the animals that have had to endure experimentation and suffering can also benefit. I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in the coalition, were involved in stopping the testing of household products on animals. I know that that meant a huge amount not only to the veterinary profession, but to all dog and animal owners. I would appreciate a meeting with the Minister—perhaps with the Humanimal Trust and academics from the University of Surrey’s vet school—to talk about how we can improve the benefit to animals from drug testing and the other types of testing, such as medical and joint implants, that are being carried out. We want to ensure that companies and academics can, as easily as possible, get licences for the drugs to be used on animals so that they can benefit from them as well.

17:07:00

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell). I am honoured to be Bournemouth East’s Member of Parliament, representing the issues that matter to my town, and dog welfare is an important one. Bournemouth is a town of dog lovers: we care deeply about the safety of dogs. As a dog lover, it is upsetting that laboratories across the country experiment on dogs and defend their methods as being in the public interest. It is not in the public interest to harm dogs, nor is it good science. Animal testing is poor science, plain and simple. We must start treating man’s best friend better. As the Labour MP for Bournemouth East, I will always stand up for animals because they do not have a voice, and I will always stand up for dog lovers because they rightly use their voice to promote animal welfare. It is time for change, and that means legislation to end the use of dogs in scientific experiments. I support Herbie’s law. In a time of heated debate, I think we can all agree on one fundamental point: dogs are brilliant. With that in mind, we need to do more. I want to thank, in my constituency, Cara and Linda in Muscliff, Jane in Pokesdown, Vanessa in Southbourne and Kate in Charminster for sharing their important views on this issue. As Kate says, every minute, five animals are suffering in experiments in British laboratories, even when non-animal are often cheaper and more reliable.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could add to his thanks list Lorna Harries, the professor of molecular genetics at the University of Exeter, who has pioneered alternative approaches that can replace some of the experimental techniques that have been used on dogs.

I agree; the voices of scientific experts in this area are critical, and I welcome his intervention. I thank everyone from my constituency who has contacted me about this important issue, including the 336 constituents who signed the petition. I also thank animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA on Richmond Park Road in my constituency, and Every Paw Matters, which I have spent time with. In fact, we are such a town of dog lovers that the 110th mayor, Councillor George Farquhar, and his wife Alison, have rescued a greyhound called Billy and now have him as the official non-human consort of the mayor. Billy will wear a wrap that says “My human votes Labour” when it is election time, but when he is serving as the non-human consort, he will happily just wear a replica chain. That shows just how much Bournemouth loves dogs—[Laughter.] That is the right response. To anyone who says we need dog testing, they are wrong. Dogs are most commonly used in secondary species testing, where, after a test happens on a mouse or a rat, researchers do a secondary test on another species, which is often a dog. But the industry says that secondary species testing is unnecessary. We know that non-animal methods can be much more accurate than using animal experiments. I commend other leading voices in this field, including the local business Lush, which is based in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and which shows how we can do better through science. Lush has never tested on animals since its doors opened in 1995, and it has funded over £2.7 million in research and science to end animal testing. It has an annual prize to reward scientists and educators who use non-animal methods and contribute to important scientific breakthroughs. It is truly leading the way. There are things that the Government could do in the immediate term and the short term. It is wrong that so few inspectors are looking at over 3 million-plus procedures. The industry is marking its own homework. In the immediate term, we need more inspectors. We need a ban on secondary species testing, and exclusive reliance on non-animal research methods. In the short term, we need legislation that fully protects animals. As a national of animal lovers, we are falling behind. The UK was the first country to create animal protection laws in 1822. We were the first to set up an animal welfare charity—the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The European Union is moving further and faster away from the UK in tackling these cruel experiments on animals and dogs. We must catch up. No other party has such a strong track record of protecting animals. I am proud to sit in a tradition that includes Keir Hardie, who died in 1915 carrying a pocket watch bitten by a favourite pit pony, having done much to secure better conditions for pit ponies. For our Labour Government, this should be unfinished business. Labour banned the cruel practice of hunting with dogs, and it banned deer hunting and hare coursing. It protected pets, livestock and wild animals, and combated international trade in animal products from any endangered species. It brought in a ban on the use of veal crates in the UK, banned fur farming and created the principle of a duty of care to meet welfare needs. Labour made it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting. Labour banned cosmetic product testing on animals. We passed the most comprehensive reform of animal welfare law in over a century. The last Labour Government stood up for animals. Starting with the provision of a right to have pets inside the rented household, we are back on track. However, back in power after 14 years, this Labour Government could go further. We can truly protect dogs and animals once again.

17:13:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. In Newport West and Islwyn, 562 of my constituents have signed this petition. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important issue this afternoon, and to demonstrate, especially to those in the Public Gallery, that Members in this place are really listening and working on their behalf. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the exceptional animal welfare charities, including, but not limited to, the RSPCA, Naturewatch Foundation, PETA, Animal Free Research UK, Replacing Animal Research and Cruelty Free International. Their vital work to brief MPs about key issues and campaigns, and to provide us with facts and figures, equips us to make representations in this place on behalf of animals. As we know, and as I always say, we must speak up for animals, because they cannot speak up for themselves. As we have heard, in 2023 there were a total of 3,770 uses of dogs in scientific procedures. I am deeply concerned about the use, and the potential suffering, of any animal in research and testing. I firmly believe that the ultimate goal should be the total replacement of all animal experiments with humane alternatives, and I would like to see a diversion of existing funding, resources and expertise away from animal experiments. I hope that this debate will encourage the consideration of all current uses of animals in science and illustrate the support for achieving faster development and uptake of non-animal technologies. However, as the petition illustrates, the strength of public feeling on this issue is particularly apparent when it comes to dogs, who—as we have already heard from hon. Members—are much-loved members of their families, whether they are ugly, pretty or whatever. That is really important. I am delighted that this Labour Government have committed to working towards phasing out the use of animal testing. Scientific reviews highlight the inability of data from dogs to predict human response accurately and consistently. With the existence of new and developing cutting-edge technology, we do not need whole-body animal systems to assess chemical and drug safety or to advance our scientific knowledge of diseases. The adoption of non-animal technologies would enable rapid development of novel therapeutics and better safety testing data for the protection of human health. Such an approach has the potential to improve efficiency, speed and prediction for humans while cutting costs and reducing animal suffering. Human-specific approaches such as artificial intelligence, organ on a chip and computer modelling produce results that are much more relevant to people—as ably outlined in this debate. I, like many others who may be more mature, have had the benefit of seeing the demonstration of these technologies at events in Parliament. It is really important that we actually go and see these technologies for ourselves.

I was horrified when I became aware that dogs could still be force-fed pesticides as part of these proposals. Does the hon. Lady agree that what we need from the Government today—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is clear dates for an end to testing on dogs and all animals?

If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech a little bit further, he would have found that I have some specific questions for the Minister—it is always good to ask specifics. It is vital that the Government produce and execute ambitious road maps for accelerating the development and uptake of advanced non-animal technologies and new approach methodologies. The UK cannot afford to fall behind other countries that are already delivering on that. I am delighted that my early-day motion 210, on Herbie’s law, has 49 signatures from hon. Members across the House—there is still time and space, in case anyone is wondering whether they want to sign it. Beagles make up 95% of the dogs used in the sort of animal testing procedures that we have heard about; Herbie’s law, named after a rescued beagle, would provide a practical framework for phasing out animal testing over the next decade and supporting the scientific community with that transition. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) well with his Bill, which is based on Herbie’s law, and I congratulate him on his hard work on this campaign. I look forward to a comprehensive and ambitious plan from the Government for delivering this transition, and I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to outlining that as she winds up. The petition that inspired this debate today shows the strength of public feeling on this issue, so it is also vital that there is complete transparency in the reporting of statistics around the use of animals.

I am advised by Matthew, a West Dunbartonshire constituent, that animals—including dogs—bred for scientific procedures and not used are omitted from Britain’s annual statistics on animal testing. If true, that means we have no real idea how many animals are used for science overall in Britain. The Home Office estimated back in 2017 that an additional 1.8 million animals were bred and then not used, which is nearly 50% more than our annual official Government figures would suggest. Sadly, apparently those animals either died or were destroyed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of becoming a country or society that does not harm dogs and animals will be more difficult without full transparency?

My hon. Friend makes a vital point; it is all about transparency. At the moment, as he rightly said, the Government do not routinely provide information about the number of animals that are bred for use in scientific procedures, but not used. What happens to those animals later in their lives? Although the EU currently collects and publishes that important data every five years, the UK has not done so since 2017. In Britain, we know that at least a third—my hon. Friend said nearly half—of the total number of animals used in science were bred and not used. Naturewatch Foundation’s “Forgotten Lives” campaign seeks to highlight the potentially hundreds of thousands of invisible animals who are undisclosed in UK Government figures. This information is vital to improving transparency and allowing for a more accurate assessment of the current impact of science on animals in the UK. Efforts to reduce, and ultimately to replace, the use of animals in scientific procedures will be difficult to measure and evaluate unless statistical data routinely includes all animals used in science. In closing, I ask the Minister two key questions. First, when will the Government provide a detailed road map about the transition to human-relevant science as part of their commitment to phasing out animal testing? Secondly, when will the Government review the current publication of statistics to ensure accuracy and transparency? Labour is the party of animal welfare; legislation to improve the lives of animals has formed a vital part of the legacies of past Labour Governments, and I look forward to building on that with this Government. Ending the use of dogs must be a first step in the full transition to the cutting-edge, human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:21:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the topic. This issue resonates deeply with many people across the country, including in my constituency, where the concern for animal welfare is strong and heartfelt. Dogs hold a deeply special place in British life. As someone lucky enough to share my home with one, I know the joy they bring: the quiet comfort, the loyalty and the unconditional love. They are more than pets—they are family. In 2023, thousands of dogs were used in the UK for experiments. Many were subjected to painful and frightening procedures. In some research labs, dogs have tubes pushed down their throats, sometimes three times a day, to force-feed them chemicals. It is called a procedure—but to dogs, it is just fear and pain. Using dogs in research is not just cruel; it is unreliable. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests still fail when they reach human trials. They either do not work or they are unsafe. In 2006, a trial in the UK for a new drug meant to treat leukaemia and arthritis had already been tested on monkeys and had not revealed any major side effects. When it was given to healthy human volunteers, however, within hours their bodies went into shock. They were left fighting for their lives and nearly died. That is not just a tragedy, but a warning. Those drugs were tested on animals first, but animal suffering does not prevent human suffering. We cannot keep pretending that what happens in a dog’s body will predict what happens in ours. Time and again, it does not. We need better science. A growing number of experts now call for a shift towards modern, human-relevant methods such as organ on a chip, 3D bio-printing and advanced computer modelling. Those are not dreams of the future; they are available now, and Britain should be leading the way. We are a nation known for scientific firsts, from the discovery of penicillin to mapping the human genome. We also pride ourselves on being a country of animal lovers. That combination gives us a unique opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world in building a better kind of research. This issue is not just a fringe concern; it speaks to public values, ethical urgency and a real chance to build science that is not just cutting-edge, but truly humane. The petitioners are looking for better science, kinder choices and British leadership in shaping a more compassionate future, and I welcome this debate.

17:24:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures is an issue that rightly draws strong public interest, with over 235,000 people signing the petition that we are debating. It is not just a small outcry, but a clear signal that action is needed. Like so many other dogs, my much-loved working cocker spaniel Charlie is a clear example of how sentient and intelligent dogs truly are—and I am sure that he would want me to put on the record today that he is a very handsome dog. I was also thrilled to see Jennie enter the room today. We can feel the response in the room when a dog enters the Chamber. They bring more to our lives. Dogs form deep emotional bonds, show remarkable sensitivity and learn with incredible ease. As with most dogs, Charlie is not just a pet; he is a member of my family, alongside my two cats, Merlot and Jags—I hesitate to add that I did not name the first cat. It is precisely that connection that makes the idea of using dogs like Charlie in laboratory experiments impossible to justify. However, the case should not be made only on ethical and emotional grounds, but on the grounds of practicality and scientific validity. A growing body of evidence points to the limited translational value of data from dogs, as we have heard, in predicting human responses to drugs and chemicals. It is particularly concerning when we discover the pace of innovation in non-animal methods, including organ-on-a-chip technology, advanced cell cultures and AI-driven modelling systems. Those approaches are not only more humane, but frequently more accurate and cost-effective, begging the question: why have we not moved on this issue already? Despite advances in biomedical research, dogs continue to be used in procedures that often cause significant suffering. They may be force-fed substances for toxicity tests, restrained for long periods and ultimately euthanised—as almost every Member has mentioned. Those are not minor interventions; they are often serious intrusions on an animal’s welfare, and they occur even as the scientific merit of such tests is increasingly being questioned. While the Government have stated their commitment to phasing out animal testing where scientifically possible, many would argue that we have already reached that point, at least in the case of dogs. The infrastructure, knowledge and tools exist; what we now need is the determination to act on them. I understand that regulatory change takes time, but we must be clear in our direction of travel. The continued use of dogs in research is increasingly difficult to defend in the light of alternatives, shifting public opinion and our broader responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as well as scientific best practice. We have the opportunity to show leadership on this issue by supporting innovation, upholding ethical standards and responding to the concerns of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. It is time to set a clear path towards ending the use of dogs in research and to invest in alternatives that will define a more humane and modern scientific future.

17:28:00

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this debate, and for her masterful analysis of this issue. I also thank the petitioner who raised this critical issue and the 235,000 people who signed it. This is an issue I care about deeply. I have a dog called Harry, a fox-red labrador and an integral part of our family. I thank him for essentially being my personal trainer, because he runs far faster than me and keeps me fit. I agree with everything that others have said about the high intelligence and emotional sensitivity of dogs. Many of my Folkestone and Hythe constituents are dog lovers and dog owners. We have miles of beautiful coastline to walk dogs along, and 316 of my constituents have signed the petition. I receive many emails from local people deeply concerned about dogs and other animals being used in testing. Nationally, the use of dogs in scientific research is relatively rare, accounting for about 0.2% of all animal procedures in Britain, yet in 2023 almost 2,500 dogs were used in nearly 3,750 scientific procedures, with over 700 classified as causing moderate or severe harm to them. Although regulations are supposed to protect laboratory animals, and advances are being made to reduce and refine the use of those animals, as this debate has shown there is growing evidence and public sentiment questioning the reliability, necessity and ethics of subjecting dogs to such procedures, especially when alternative methods are being developed. Like my colleagues, I believe that this country should be a world leader in ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare. We are seeing rapid advances in AI—I am pleased to see the AI Minister present to answer the debate—that offer powerful and humane alternatives to animal testing involving dogs. Today, AI-driven methods can analyse vast amounts of biological and chemical data to predict accurately how new drugs and chemicals will behave in the human body. As hon. Members have said, those technologies are already being used to identify potential risks and to filter out unsafe compounds before they ever reach an animal or a human trial. The use of this technology would spare countless animals from unnecessary suffering and would also accelerate the pace of scientific discovery and reduce costs. By investing in and embracing AI, we have the opportunity to lead the way towards a future where UK science and compassion go hand in hand, and where the use of animals in research is a thing of the past. I look forward to reading and analysing the Government’s strategy for developing alternative methods for animal testing, which I believe will be published later this year. I urge the Government, when drawing up that strategy, to engage meaningfully with animal protection groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others, as their experts have played a key role in developing effective and science-driven policies so that we may replace experiments on dogs with superior, humane, non-animal testing here in the UK and across the world.

17:31:00

It is a real pleasure to serve under your authority, Ms Jardine. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to make it clear that, although I am the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I speak in this debate on behalf of my party, and it is a winding-up role. It has been a very thoughtful and impassioned debate. If you ever wonder, “Do dogs have feelings? Do they have memories? Are they sentient beings?”, you only have to go to Edinburgh to find out—you know what I am talking about, Ms Jardine. If you go to the corner of Candlemaker Row and George IV Bridge, there is a statue of Greyfriars Bobby, who was either a Skye Terrier or a Dandie Dinmont; I am not quite sure which. For 14 whole years, wee Bobby the dog sat by his master’s grave, because Bobby was mourning. Dogs do have feelings. I too congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her really thoughtful and compassionate leading of this debate. I also congratulate all the other Members who contributed so wisely, constructively and with such care and conviction. And I pay tribute to the petitioners who have brought this vital issue to Parliament’s attention. It is clear that there is consensus across the House. The use of dogs in scientific testing raises profound ethical, scientific and societal questions, and public concern about the welfare of animals used in experiments is growing, and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, those in our party are proud and staunch supporters of high animal welfare standards. Throughout our history, we have championed the rights and wellbeing of animals, and this debate is a contribution to that commitment. As he pointed out, let us not forget that, during the coalition Government we introduced a ban on animal testing of household products—a significant step that reflected the public’s desire for greater compassion in our laws. In passing, I must say that we were strongly opposed to the unnecessary deaths of animals caused by what they call “duplicated testing” following this country’s departure from the European Union. That was a tragic consequence that could and should have been avoided. Most recently, at my party’s conference this year, we reaffirmed our commitment by passing a substantial new policy motion calling on the Government to introduce a comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill as part of a proper national strategy to secure Britain’s place as a world leader in animal welfare. This is not just about policy, though. It is essential that we recognise in British law that animals are sentient beings. That is not just a symbolic gesture; it places a binding duty on Governments now and in the future to uphold our country’s high welfare standards. Let us be clear: testing on dogs must be minimised wherever possible, rigorously justified, tightly regulated and, above all, actively reduced day by day, week by week and month by month. That is why my party is calling for significant and sustained funding for research into alternative methods that are both more humane and scientifically advanced. We have heard some interesting ideas on how that can be taken forward, and I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. I want to close by referring to an old friend of mine. I was a scrawny wee boy. I was an only kid until I was 10, living on a small dairy farm in the north of Scotland, and my best friend was Gus, an African lion hound. That sounds like a very grand name, and Gus was an enormous dog. I was just a lonely wee boy on a farm and Gus was my best chum. We did everything together, Gus and me. I called him Gug because I could not pronounce Gus—mostly because, my mum said, I had a cold most of the time, as it was a very cold place. Believe it or not, Gus—this vast dog—used to let me share his dog biscuits. I can remember quite enjoying dog biscuits—I had better not go further lest my late mother be accused of bad parenting or rural deprivation. I was delighted to join this debate to remember an old friend who was part of my earliest years and is still remembered by me as a sweet and lovely dog.

17:36:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the almost 235,000 signatories to this petition, including 670 from my constituency of Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The number of signatories to the petition and the speed at which they were collected demonstrate the strength of feeling on the issue. It is just over a year since the previous debates on this topic. At the start of my speech, I must declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—and, since we are all pitching for our various hounds, as the owner of the best-looking dog. She is the winner of several “best rescue” rosettes—I think that puts that discussion to bed. The use of dogs and other animals in scientific and regulatory procedures has long been a controversial and emotive topic. It is a topic in which I have a closer interest than I may like, and more of an interest than most Members of this House need to. My constituency of Huntingdon has long been ground zero for much of the conversation around this practice. It has two sites involved in pharmaceutical research and animal testing: Labcorp’s pharmaceutical testing facility and Marshal BioResources’s beagle breeding facility, which is known as MBR Acres. As such, I speak on this subject with some first-hand experience of its sensitivity. Only this weekend, there was a large demonstration of several hundred people outside the MBR Acres beagle breeding facility. I visited LabCorp last summer, so I have seen at first hand the lab conditions, the dogs in their pens and how they are looked after. It is very sanitised, as one might expect. I did not witness any of the experiments taking place, but it is a difficult thing to see the dogs held in those areas, knowing what awaits them in the testing process. While this debate is about dogs, they sit within a hierarchy. Pigs are at the bottom, then come dogs, and above them sit primates. It is notable that no one has spoken about the use of primates in testing, but it is worth mentioning because, having visited that facility, I have seen the macaques that are used for testing above dogs in rarer circumstances, and the way that they come over, climb on the fences and look one in the eyes. The similarity between humans and primates makes it even more difficult to look at them than at the dogs. I would like to make clear that I do not support animal testing for human medication—hence my APPG membership—but recognise that it is, at present, still a crucial milestone that regrettably will have a place in the pre-clinical testing process until there has been sufficient advancement in non-animal methods that such practices are no longer required across the board. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we would like to see a world in which animal testing for human medication is no longer needed. That is also the view of many that we have spoken to who are involved in the testing. Animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Animals can therefore be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. The Opposition fully support the Act and its full enforcement. The previous Government invested heavily funding for the three Rs: replacement of the use of animals in research where that is not necessary, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved. Via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, or NC3Rs, the previous Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council supports research that aims to develop and apply innovative methods for studying human and animal physiology, including in-silica approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems. Last year, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced a doubling of annual funding to £20 million. He also announced that the then Government had a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. I wrote to the Secretary of State last year and asked him whether he would publish this plan. I am keen to hear from the Minister what happened to the plan and when the Government’s version can be expected. As we are all well aware, in its election manifesto last year, the Labour party pledged to phase out animal testing. The Government’s starting position is that it is “not yet possible to replace all animal use due to the complexity of biological systems and regulatory requirements for their use.” We share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, but it is simply not realistic to do so with the immediacy that is often clamoured for by those protesting against the process. The medical industry desperately needs further investment to realise new alternatives. Currently, it does not have the resources to stop animal testing with immediate effect in a way that would ensure the sufficient safety of certain medicines, or that would be compliant with many foreign market standards and regulatory frameworks. Global medicines regulators such as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration require stringent research standards regarding the safety of a potential new medicine to be met before it is used in human clinical trials. In February, I asked the Government what discussions they had had with the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic regarding the regulatory approval of non-animal methods. They responded: “The Government is working to understand the international drivers and challenges to integrating non-animal methods into regulatory safety testing. This includes engaging with government scientists and regulators, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Food Standards Agency and Environment Agency, as well as international medicines and chemicals regulators”. Separately, the Minister has informed me that these methods will need to be incorporated into the international regulatory guidelines that the MHRA adheres to. That is it. That is the Government’s entire approach to crossing the enormous hurdle of international recognition. Regardless of how much money we pour into research, without international recognition of specific non-animal methods for each pharmaceutical product tested via those means, international licensing of those products is simply not feasible, so any talk from the Government about phasing out animal testing is just lip service. In September, I asked the Government what steps they were taking to change the policy of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to allow results from non-animal methods of pharmaceutical testing to be used to support drug safety through pre-clinical trials. They responded: “We are engaging with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who represent the UK at the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on how to accelerate the acceptance of data generated in non-animal methods for drug safety decision making.” I am aware that MHRA representatives attended a ministerial roundtable on accelerating the adoption of alternatives to using animals for drug development last year. Given that that was more than six months ago, I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made. We need action from the Government in a number of areas if they are to meet their ambition of animal-free testing. We would welcome clarification from the Minister about what has been done and what will be done through conversations with other regulatory bodies and Governments about phasing out animal testing as a priority, when alternatives are available, in a way that does not hinder trade possibilities. As the Government work on trade deals, it is crucial, where medicines are concerned, that this area is looked at closely. The UK can lead the way. Working with partners on this issue is key for our scientific and medical industry, because even where there may be alternatives to testing on animals, some products would not fit the criteria to sell elsewhere under the current rules. In February, I asked the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms if the Government would publish a timeline for the phasing out of tests via the work of the NC3Rs. He responded: “We are working at pace trying to put together a practicable policy and a strategy which, as I said, we will publish by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 244.] I am aware that the Government have already made clear that they will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods later this year. I do not anticipate that the situation has changed significantly in the 10 weeks since that exchange, but now that we are a third of the way through the year, I would like to hear from the Minister whether any progress has been made. Is a strategy now in place? Furthermore, will the Minister expand on what exact engagement the Department and the Government at large are having with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities on how to take their commitment forward? The issue of licences for animal testing should also be addressed, although I appreciate that it is not within this Department’s brief. Marshall BioResources in my constituency last received an unannounced inspection from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in April 2024. Since receiving its establishment licence in October 2017, it has received eight announced and seven unannounced inspections. The outcome of the most recent inspection was that no critical, major or minor findings and no low-level concerns were identified. With that in mind, the Minister has previously informed me that the Government are preparing to conduct an internal review into the duration of project licences for animal research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The original schedule was for the review’s report to be published by the end of 2025. Could the Minister tell me whether the review has started and whether the report will still be published by year end? To conclude, we want to see clear, pragmatic plans that support the Government’s manifesto pledges, and that must include viable alternative testing methods that are safe and that can sell on the international stage.

17:46:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate. I also thank the thousands of petitioners—some of whom are in the Public Gallery, which indicates the strength of public views on this matter—and all hon. Members here today, who have made powerful contributions. I do not have a dog, so I will not enter the competition about whose dog is the cutest, but I do have two little children who try to touch every single dog we come across when we go around parks; they at least now know that they have to ask permission before they do that. I feel that I am not too far from having one of those cute dogs, or one like Frank, in our household. The Government fully appreciate that the use of dogs for scientific and regulatory procedures stirs strong emotional feelings for many people across the UK, including myself as a dog lover. In my previous role in local government, I was responsible for environment, including stray dogs, as part of a service for many authorities around us. In a bid to avoid having to put healthy dogs down, we set up London’s first dog hotel, which Peter Egan opened. We had a system where staff could come and take dogs out for walks. Every role I have had has involved looking after dogs, and I must say that I found the preparation for this debate very difficult. Along with other Members present, I long for the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research; it cannot come soon enough, but sadly it is not yet here. The UK is world leading in the development of non-animal methods, and the Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible. That is why our manifesto commits us to partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards phasing out animal testing. Colleagues mentioned the changes that the FDA has brought forward. To be clear, those bring it in line with us regarding the protection of animals, but where there is new learning to be done, we will absolutely look at that. As part of our commitment to phasing out the use of animals in science, we will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. It will set out how we can build on our support by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animal testing with alternative methods wherever possible. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment. I will now expand on why, given the current state of science, we are unfortunately not yet ready to ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. The use of animals in science lies in the intersection of two vital public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment, and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare. The balance between these two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only 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. As has been mentioned, this is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated, including through a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. 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. Our manifesto commitment stands in recognition of the fact that the phasing out of animal testing has to be in lockstep with the development of alternatives. As yet, the reality is that the technology is not advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. For now, animal testing and research play an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment. Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. The development of the covid-19 vaccine, as with all vaccines, was made possible only because of the use of animals in research. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. Many products that would be unsafe or ineffective, or that could cause harm to humans, are detected through animal testing, ensuring the safety of the healthy volunteers who take part in clinical trials, as well as of future patients.

We have heard from a number of Members today—some of them very learned Members of Parliament who have professional backgrounds in this area—about the serious doubts regarding the efficacy of some of the tests the Minister is referring to. Would she be willing after the debate to share with me the sources she is using to support her claims regarding the value of this testing?

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am happy to share the research and reasons behind my arguments. For the reasons I have given, animal testing is required by the international agreements followed by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 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 is for an immediate ban on the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated. However, I regret to say that forbidding the use of dogs in medical research—without alternatives at the moment—would likely have catastrophic effects on the UK’s medical research system. We would be unable to meet international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, preventing virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK and vastly reducing the number of subsequent clinical trials. A significant proportion of basic research would cease, preventing new insight into disease and treatments that save lives and improve people’s health. Forbidding the use of animals in medical research would also likely have a negative impact on animal welfare. Animal testing would move overseas, to countries where the regulations on the use of animals in science are less stringent than they are here. I am proud to say that the UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise that technology as much as possible. As much as we can, we are striving to partner with regulators to see how advances in technology can phase out animal use where we are able to do that.

The Minister is making an interesting speech, because the Labour party manifesto commitment is very clear: we are looking to ban animal testing. We have talked about a road map, which Labour has committed to, so when will that be published and when will the strategy be published? I ask because those are vital things that people in the Public Gallery want to know today.

My hon. Friend intervenes at the right time, as I was about to say that in publishing our road map, we will be setting out how we can go even further in supporting alternative methods and working towards a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternatives wherever possible. Currently, through UKRI, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs. That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.

I failed to catch the Minister’s eye on her previous mention of the three Rs. Does she agree that the number of procedures using specially protected species—cats, dogs, horses and non-human primates—has actually increased over recent years, to about 17,000 from about 15,000 in 2022 and that that was driven by a 38.9% rise in procedures using horses? Does she also agree that our hon. Friend the Minister for Security confirmed that in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2024, no applications for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were refused? Does she see reductions in the number of animals being used in testing or are they actually increasing as part of the strategy?

The stats that I have say that in 2023 the use of dogs in procedures reduced by 9%. On overall animal testing, I will have to get back to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my colleagues from the Home Office will be able to explain the stringent licensing process—the procedure that everyone has to go through to be able to obtain a licence. We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can. That is why our current approach is to support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards, which will drive their uptake. We have a commitment in our manifesto to do all we can to phase out the use of animals—including dogs—in science, and we will be publishing a road map before the end of the year to lay out how we can give increased impetus to the support and validation of alternative methods. Colleagues asked about ensuring that we are consulting animal welfare organisations, and there is a roundtable meeting with the Office for Life Sciences and animal welfare organisations to do precisely that. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) requested a meeting to discuss issues around the benefits of testing on animals. I am happy to agree to that and will be in contact with his office to arrange one. I conclude by again thanking Members for their insightful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together as we go forward.

17:59:00

I first thank Maria Iriart for creating the petition and for her work in growing it to more than 230,000 signatures. I thank its supporters who have attended the debate—it is much appreciated. I also thank Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, Dr Jarrod Bailey and Understanding Animal Research for their helpful briefings. As ever, I give huge thanks to the staff of the Petitions Committee for their invaluable hard work and organisation in preparing meetings and briefings, and for their support in preparing for this debate. As we have heard, Britain is without doubt a nation of animal lovers. As a Scottish MP, I have some Scottish data to hand: 79% of Scottish adults believe that it is unacceptable for experiments on animals to continue when other testing methods are available, and 62% are in favour of the Government setting deadlines for the phasing out of animal testing. In my constituency, 248 people signed the petition. I, too, think that the timeline is crucial: when we get the road map, we need a realistic timeline with it; if we have no timeline, it would be hugely problematic. I have to be honest: the debate has brought attention to an issue that many people do not want to face or discuss. The many contributions today have highlighted the depth of feeling on this matter. We have the scientific evidence, with many scientists advising and supporting the view that it is time to remove dogs from medical testing. It is important to remember that, although we have mentioned animal testing in the wider sense, this debate is about removing dogs immediately from medical testing. We should not lose sight of that—Jennie the dog is here today, so we even have a dog in the Chamber. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the Minister, although I have to say that her response was disappointing. I look forward to the day when we achieve this aim, but I really do think that we must have a timeline; otherwise, the road map will not be robust. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.

18:02:00

Sitting adjourned.