We are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a key priority since my election to parliament so I completely understand the use of animals in science, including toxicity testing, is a highly sensitive and emotive issue. A Westminster Hall debate on animal testing was recently held in Parliament, following the petition tabled on behalf of campaigners Camp Beagle. Although I was disappointed not to be able to attend, I do appreciate how strongly campaigners feel about these issues. I have provided a link to the debate transcript here as constituents may be as interested to read it as I was.
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs - Hansard - UK Parliament
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. Put simply, animals can only be used in research when no alternative methods are available. While I share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, I do not think it is realistic to do so in the timeframe requested by campaigners.
I am proud the UK is one of the world's leading nations in the development of non-animal methods; I am keen to ensure that these are utilised wherever is possible and I will support work which aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives. Sadly, however, technology is not yet at a point to wholly replace animal testing for important applications tackling some of the most significant human health conditions.
It is critical that we continue to invest in research into the 3Rs: replacing the use of animals in research where unnecessary, reducing the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved in research. Through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), the last 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.
In 2024, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, Andrew Griffith MP, announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in fiscal year 2024/25 to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives. As the Spending Review concludes, I urge the Government to provide clarity about what funding it will provide for research into non-animal methods in scientific research over the next few years.
I strongly advocate for these methods and believe they will greatly improve our animal welfare standards, the economy and the safety of chemical products in the UK. Such technologies have the potential to reduce the reliance on the use of animals, improve the efficiency of drug research and development, and deliver safer, cheaper and more effective medicines to patients. The law already requires that animals are only used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used, and potential harm is the minimum needed to achieve scientific benefit. I, along with my colleagues in Opposition, am keen to work with the Government on reaching a point at which testing on animals is no longer necessary.
I understand there was a recent roundtable meeting between Ministers, the Office for Life Sciences, and animal welfare organisations to ensure the voices of animal welfare organisations are fed into the strategy. As you will be aware, the current Labour Government has a manifesto commitment to phase out animal testing altogether. It is a noble aim. Ministers have made assurances that they will publish a roadmap this year which will lay out how government can give increased impetus to the support and validation of alternative methods. I look forward to reading the strategy and scrutinising its proposals.
