Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

07 February 2022 · 13 other contributors · 14,302 words

Opened by Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Responding minister: Kit Malthouse

Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Martyn Day raised concerns about laboratory animals: animal welfare act in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Mr Martyn Day raises concerns about the exclusion of laboratory animals from protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, citing specific procedures causing suffering.
  • Rachael Maskell highlights that 92% of animal experiments are unsuccessful and that 1.8 million laboratory animals are bred but not used for experimentation each year.
  • Mr Martyn Day and Rachael Maskell both call for changes in legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act and for investment in alternatives to animal experimentation.

Key requests to Government

Mr Martyn Day calls on the Government to urgently consider enshrining viable options for scientific research that avoid animal suffering, including changing legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act and supporting state-of-the-art human-based research methods like gene-based medicine. He requests an update on the petition's request for a rigorous public hearing. Maskell asks for an investment of £10 million annually over the next decade into the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research to accelerate the pace of work on new sciences. She also requests that the Government strengthen the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and speed up pathways out of animal experimentation.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Mr Martyn Day is concerned about the exclusion of laboratory animals from protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which legalises procedures causing unnecessary suffering. He highlights specific examples such as force feeding and blood extraction without anaesthesia in beagle puppies. Mr Day also points out that over 90% of animal experiments do not bring real benefits and raises questions about why alternatives cannot replace these practices. He emphasises the need for a public scientific hearing to address this issue. Rachael Maskell is concerned about the welfare of animals used in laboratory research, highlighting that there were 3.4 million experiments in 2019, with 100,000 causing pain and 50,000 causing severe pain. She also mentions that 92% of experiments are unsuccessful and that 1.8 million laboratory animals are bred but not used for experimentation each year. Maskell points out the need to address loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act regarding scientific research and advocates for a comprehensive framework.

Other contributors (13)
  • Alex Sobel Lab Co-op Leeds Central and Headingley

    Sobel thanked the petitioners for bringing forward e-petition 591775, which received over 110,000 signatures. He highlighted contributions from various MPs discussing animal welfare issues, including the need to review and update legislation such as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  • Ben Spencer Con Runnymede and Weybridge

    He argued that animal research is essential, particularly in transgenic animals and drug development. He cited examples like xenotransplantation for human diseases and the work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency to protect global animal health from diseases such as tuberculosis and avian influenza.

  • Chris Law SNP Nairn, Aberdeenshire and Moray

    Mr Chris Law agrees with his colleague's concerns about animal testing failures and supports the call for a fact-based approach to address the issue. He details examples of repeated forced feeding and breathing restrictions in laboratory dogs.

  • Derek Thomas Con St Ives

    Mr Derek Thomas intervenes briefly, expressing agreement with the need for human-based research alternatives.

  • John Nicolson

    He highlights the extent of animal testing in UK laboratories, pointing out that 57,000 animals were subjected to 'severe experimental procedures' in 2020. He argues for better regulation and oversight by the Home Office. Nicolson asked for a specific scientific or ethical justification for practices such as pouring chemicals into puppies' stomachs without anaesthetics.

  • Lisa Cameron SNP East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow

    Agrees with the need for alternatives to animal testing and criticises the use of beagle puppies in experiments involving blood plasma extraction while alive. She thanked the hon. Gentleman for his approach to the debate and expressed support for a scientific hearing of expert opinion to get to the bottom of whether alternatives are sufficient.

  • Luke Pollard Lab Co-op Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

    Mr. Pollard highlighted the need for investment in non-animal technologies to replace animal testing, stressing the importance of a clear roadmap towards ending laboratory experiments on animals. He expressed concern over potential discrepancies between current regulations post-Brexit and EU standards, specifically regarding cosmetics testing requirements. Mr. Pollard also raised issues about military animal testing by the MOD, noting that while there has been a reduction in numbers, further restrictions are necessary to protect both animals and national security. Additionally, he questioned how trade deals might affect the importation of products tested on animals abroad.

  • Margaret Ferrier SNP Rutherglen

    Questions the need for urgent moves away from unnecessary animal testing procedures and highlights the development of gene-based medicine as an alternative that avoids harm to animals. She intervenes to ask about a lack of accountability and oversight at the Home Office regarding animal testing, suggesting that applications are not reviewed thoroughly enough.

  • Patricia Gibson SNP North Ayrshire and Arran

    The MP thanked her colleague for raising the issue of including laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. She cited Home Office data showing that 2.88 million procedures involving sentient animals were carried out in the UK in 2020 and called for a public scientific hearing on animal experiments to assess their necessity. The MP highlighted the need to follow the science, move away from misleading research methods rooted in the past, and recognise animals as sentient beings wherever they are. Gibson inquired about section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act which prohibits the disclosure of information on animal treatment during experiments, noting that the Home Office had consulted on this but not published outcomes.

  • Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op York Central

    Asked the Minister if he would give way.

  • Roger Gale Con Herne Bay and Sandwich

    The speaker questioned the progress made since the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, noting that alternative methods validation has not advanced as expected. He acknowledged that animal testing remains necessary for international pharmaceutical licensing but argued against the idea of a UK-only ban due to potential global relocation of testing under worse conditions.

  • Tan Dhesi Lab Slough

    He is concerned about the continued use of animals in laboratories despite their suffering, noting that force-feeding chemicals to dogs for up to 90 days without pain relief is considered 'mild suffering'. He calls for a timeline for phasing out animal testing and increasing funding for alternative methods. The Minister has failed to answer why anaesthetics cannot be given to animals suffering.

  • Wera Hobhouse Lib Dem Bath

    The speaker highlighted the public support for an end to animal testing and the outdated nature of regulatory requirements mandating animals before human trials. She argued that the 90% failure rate in human trials for animal-tested drugs underscores the need for a ban on laboratory experiments, citing moral objections and scientific evidence against the practice.

Government Response

Kit Malthouse

The Minister acknowledged the debate's focus on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), emphasizing its role in regulating animal use for scientific purposes while ensuring high welfare standards. He noted that ASPA prevents the unnecessary use of animals and mandates robust licensing and oversight systems. The Minister clarified misconceptions about a high failure rate in animal tests, explaining their critical role in drug development safety assessments. Regarding dogs used in research, he detailed regulatory protections and the necessity for such studies due to genetic similarities with humans, contributing significantly to medical advancements. He also addressed concerns over gavage feeding and bleeding procedures, asserting scientific justifications while emphasizing humane treatment obligations. The Minister concluded by reiterating the Government's commitment to improving animal welfare standards through initiatives like the three Rs strategy (replace, reduce, refine) for reducing reliance on animal testing.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy