Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.

I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.

I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.

Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.

My Lords, I, too, will speak briefly to the statutory instrument. These draft regulations must ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively and they make technical amendments relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. It is only correct to have strong scrutiny where the welfare of animals is concerned. I for one hope that the Government are fully committed to meeting those targets set for 2030 to emphasise the fact that this must and should include progress reporting, set with clear time scales of action leading towards supporting a transition away from animal use in science and absolutely to maintain our current standard, as well as to be in line with the post-EU governance. Any procedural changes must require primary legislation.

These technical changes around transparency and oversight are in line with maintaining UK standards and benchmarks, following the removal of the EU references. Assurances are required, though, on how they will operate in practice, whether the amendments fully preserve the existing protections and reporting requirements and how the key provisions will be updated over time. Above all, every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals and, again, to acknowledge that further steps are required to reduce the use of animals in research.

Lastly, I ask the Minister: what mechanism will replace EU-level comparators and oversight? Will the provision translate into improved public accountability and transparency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.

I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?

At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?

There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this instrument and other Members of this Committee for their enlightening speeches. I welcome the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, after a limited period away.

As we consider these regulations, it is important that the framework for scientific procedures on animals continues to minimise avoidable suffering and reflect current best practice. We support the technical purpose of these regulations, consolidating assimilated law into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They provide a clearer domestic legislative framework following our exit from the European Union. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for making further inquiries on the detail of the reset Bill and the context in which this will operate.

However, as my colleague Luke Taylor MP noted in the House of Commons, while we support the legal structure, stronger and more explicit action from the Government is needed, in our view, to improve animal welfare within that framework. This instrument maintains the existing safeguards, including the three Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement—arguments on replacement were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. The instrument is essentially a restatement of the status quo, as we understand it; we believe that the Government should be more ambitious. Our long-term objective remains the progressive elimination of scientific procedures that cause animals pain, suffering or distress where and when viable alternatives exist.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, on transparency, there have been long-standing calls for the repeal or reform of Section 24 of the 1986 Act to allow greater access to information, subject to appropriate safeguards and, obviously, upholding the criminal law where it impacts on individuals. Does the Minister agree that moving towards a presumption in favour of openness is important for public confidence and accountability?

Secondly, turning to new Schedule 2AA, I note that the instrument refers to procedures in the “severe” category, including those involving significant pain, distress or lethality, such as certain toxicity tests where death is the endpoint. Recent Home Office statistics show that thousands of such procedures are still being carried out each year. What plans and timelines do the Government have to reduce and ultimately phase out these forms of “severe” suffering?

Thirdly, on Herbie’s law and related proposals, we welcome the recent commitments to invest in alternatives to animal use, as referred to by the Minister. However, to deliver real change, there needs to be a clear strategy to support human-specific technologies and to embed them across the system, including in regulatory requirements and funding priorities.

In conclusion, we recognise that this instrument is a technical update which improves the coherence of the existing regime, and we support it. However, this also marks a moment where, if the Government wish the United Kingdom to be a genuine leader in this area, further steps will be required, including consideration of more comprehensive primary legislation on animal health and welfare in science.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.

In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.

I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.

I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.

I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.

On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?

I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?

I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?