What the government has answered

The department does not hold information relating to gamebird hunting bags.

The department does not hold information relating to gamebird hunting bags.

Progress in delivering the objectives of the strategy will be measured against a set of KPIs developed in consultation with delivery partners. A KPI framework covering the strategy's commitments will be published later this year. While a unified reporting format that captures investments made through all relevant government departments and regulatory bodies is not yet available, individual delivery partners are developing and refining their reporting methodologies.

Defra is working as quickly as possible to assess Brazilian production systems to ensure that beef and chicken from animals treated with certain antimicrobial products are not exported to Great Britain and is keeping trade restrictions under review. The assessment will include an urgent in-country audit. Sanitary and phytosanitary trade measures must be evidence-based and proportionate in line with World Trade Organization rules.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency does not routinely hold records of non-compliance with bird registration requirements or any subsequent enforcement activity. These records are held by the relevant local authority because they are responsible for the enforcement of bird registration requirements under the Animal Health Act.

I refer the Hon Member to the response given by the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services on 9 June 2026 to Connor Naismith MP under PQ 5710.

During the period of hot weather, ASRU assessed temperature data provided by MBR Acres in June and July 2026, and found no evidence of adverse animal welfare impacts. Establishments are required to undertake daily checks by competent persons to monitor animal welfare and environmental conditions, take prompt action where necessary, and report any actual or potential breach of licence conditions to the Home Office.

Local authorities must ensure that temporary accommodation is suitable for applicants and members of their household, taking account of their needs, requirements, circumstances and the location of the accommodation. Applicants may ask for a review on request of the housing authority’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable. The statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance encourages housing authorities to be sensitive to the importance of pets to applicants, particularly people sleeping rough and elderly people who may rely on pets for companionship and to give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. Local authorities do their upmost to try and accommodate this, however not all types of temporary or emergency accommodation are suitable for pets, as there may be limited facilities and space available. Recognising the importance of pets, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduced an implied term into private sector assured tenancies, that enables tenants to ask the landlord for permission to keep a pet, and when they do so consent cannot be unreasonably refused. No specific assessment has been made of the impact on mental health and wellbeing when people experiencing homelessness are separated from a companion animal in order to have access to accommodation, or the impact that pet policies have on levels of rough sleeping.

Local authorities must ensure that temporary accommodation is suitable for applicants and members of their household, taking account of their needs, requirements, circumstances and the location of the accommodation. Applicants may ask for a review on request of the housing authority’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable. The statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance encourages housing authorities to be sensitive to the importance of pets to applicants, particularly people sleeping rough and elderly people who may rely on pets for companionship and to give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. Local authorities do their upmost to try and accommodate this, however not all types of temporary or emergency accommodation are suitable for pets, as there may be limited facilities and space available. Recognising the importance of pets, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduced an implied term into private sector assured tenancies, that enables tenants to ask the landlord for permission to keep a pet, and when they do so consent cannot be unreasonably refused. No specific assessment has been made of the impact on mental health and wellbeing when people experiencing homelessness are separated from a companion animal in order to have access to accommodation, or the impact that pet policies have on levels of rough sleeping.

Local authorities must ensure that temporary accommodation is suitable for applicants and members of their household, taking account of their needs, requirements, circumstances and the location of the accommodation. Applicants may ask for a review on request of the housing authority’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable. The statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance encourages housing authorities to be sensitive to the importance of pets to applicants, particularly people sleeping rough and elderly people who may rely on pets for companionship and to give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. Local authorities do their upmost to try and accommodate this, however not all types of temporary or emergency accommodation are suitable for pets, as there may be limited facilities and space available. Recognising the importance of pets, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduced an implied term into private sector assured tenancies, that enables tenants to ask the landlord for permission to keep a pet, and when they do so consent cannot be unreasonably refused. No specific assessment has been made of the impact on mental health and wellbeing when people experiencing homelessness are separated from a companion animal in order to have access to accommodation, or the impact that pet policies have on levels of rough sleeping.

Local authorities must ensure that temporary accommodation is suitable for applicants and members of their household, taking account of their needs, requirements, circumstances and the location of the accommodation. Applicants may ask for a review on request of the housing authority’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable. The statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance encourages housing authorities to be sensitive to the importance of pets to applicants, particularly people sleeping rough and elderly people who may rely on pets for companionship and to give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. Local authorities do their upmost to try and accommodate this, however not all types of temporary or emergency accommodation are suitable for pets, as there may be limited facilities and space available. Recognising the importance of pets, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduced an implied term into private sector assured tenancies, that enables tenants to ask the landlord for permission to keep a pet, and when they do so consent cannot be unreasonably refused. No specific assessment has been made of the impact on mental health and wellbeing when people experiencing homelessness are separated from a companion animal in order to have access to accommodation, or the impact that pet policies have on levels of rough sleeping.

We are supporting the development, validation and international acceptance of alternative methods, including through the forthcoming UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM), engagement with international regulators and participation in OECD test guideline programmes. We are also strengthening bilateral and multilateral partnerships to support the global uptake of validated alternatives, helping to reduce reliance on animal testing while maintaining high standards of human, animal and environmental safety.

The Government is committed to ensuring that non-human primates used in scientific procedures are sourced responsibly and used only where no suitable alternative is available. In 2025, 1,845 non-human primates were used for the first time in scientific procedures in Great Britain. All marmosets, tamarins and rhesus monkeys were born at licensed establishments in the UK, while the majority of cynomolgus monkeys were born overseas, but were not sourced from the wild. Following advice from the Animals in Science Committee, the Home Office strengthened its sourcing requirements from 1 August 2025 so that non-human primates should come from established captive-breeding populations rather than being sourced from the wild. These requirements are supported by a time-limited transitional arrangement and a commitment to review their operation. The Government supports the use of UK-bred non-human primates where suitable animals are available. However, sourcing decisions must take account of scientific requirements, animal welfare, biosecurity and the availability of appropriate breeding populations. The Home Office will continue to monitor sourcing data and the effect of the strengthened requirements. The Government is also investing £75 million through its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal use.

The Government is committed to ensuring that non-human primates used in scientific procedures are sourced responsibly and used only where no suitable alternative is available. In 2025, 1,845 non-human primates were used for the first time in scientific procedures in Great Britain. All marmosets, tamarins and rhesus monkeys were born at licensed establishments in the UK, while the majority of cynomolgus monkeys were born overseas, but were not sourced from the wild. Following advice from the Animals in Science Committee, the Home Office strengthened its sourcing requirements from 1 August 2025 so that non-human primates should come from established captive-breeding populations rather than being sourced from the wild. These requirements are supported by a time-limited transitional arrangement and a commitment to review their operation. The Government supports the use of UK-bred non-human primates where suitable animals are available. However, sourcing decisions must take account of scientific requirements, animal welfare, biosecurity and the availability of appropriate breeding populations. The Home Office will continue to monitor sourcing data and the effect of the strengthened requirements. The Government is also investing £75 million through its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal use.

The Government is committed to ensuring that non-human primates used in scientific procedures are sourced responsibly and used only where no suitable alternative is available. In 2025, 1,845 non-human primates were used for the first time in scientific procedures in Great Britain. All marmosets, tamarins and rhesus monkeys were born at licensed establishments in the UK, while the majority of cynomolgus monkeys were born overseas, but were not sourced from the wild. Following advice from the Animals in Science Committee, the Home Office strengthened its sourcing requirements from 1 August 2025 so that non-human primates should come from established captive-breeding populations rather than being sourced from the wild. These requirements are supported by a time-limited transitional arrangement and a commitment to review their operation. The Government supports the use of UK-bred non-human primates where suitable animals are available. However, sourcing decisions must take account of scientific requirements, animal welfare, biosecurity and the availability of appropriate breeding populations. The Home Office will continue to monitor sourcing data and the effect of the strengthened requirements. The Government is also investing £75 million through its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to animal use.

It is illegal to export livestock or horses for slaughter or fattening under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024. This Government understands the strong sentiment that led to legislation to ban live exports for slaughter and fattening. This Government has agreed with the EU to establish a common Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) area, by way of an SPS Agreement. Negotiations with the EU are ongoing so it would not be appropriate to comment on the detailed content at this stage. Throughout discussions, this Government has been clear about the importance of being able to set high animal welfare standards.

Defra recognises the ongoing debate on how best to account for short-lived greenhouse gases such as methane. While GWP* can provide useful insights into methane's warming effects, it is not currently considered a suitable replacement for conventional emissions reporting metrics in agriculture. The GWP* concept of "no additional warming" risks implying that continued methane emissions are environmentally neutral and may weaken incentives for emissions reductions. GWP100 remains the internationally agreed metric for greenhouse gas reporting. The UK will continue to engage in international discussions and monitor emerging evidence, guided by the best available science and international consensus.

The UK has one of the toughest pet border checking regimes in the world and this Government is committed to preserving the high standards of biosecurity and animal welfare. The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 gives the Government powers to prohibit the import into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months old and introduce measures to strengthen current enforcement mechanisms. Defra will continue to work with UK enforcement bodies as we develop these measures.

The Government encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter. Any Jhatka slaughter would need to comply with the requirements to protect animal welfare set out in legislation, as well as meat hygiene requirements. Defra and Food Standards Agency officials have met with the Jhatka Council to discuss their proposals. The Council has since set out their submission in more detail. Officials are carefully considering the proposals and will keep the Council informed of progress.

The UK is currently negotiating an SPS Agreement with the EU. These negotiations are at an advanced stage and expected to remove the requirement for Export Health Certificates.    The Agreement will have implications for Official Veterinarians undertaking export certification, including the demand for Export Health Certificate (EHC) services. Defra are working with the veterinary profession and wider industry stakeholders to monitor this capability and ensure an effective and well-managed transition.

The Government will continue supporting voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds and is not currently considering a ban on these breeds.

The Government will draw upon the wide-ranging advice within the Animal Welfare Committee’s recent report on livestock breeding in all upcoming work. The report did not however provide an in-depth assessment of the welfare status of fast-growing breeds of meat chickens.

As stated in the Animal Welfare Strategy, the Government supports voluntary efforts to move away from fast-growing meat chicken breeds. Whilst no specific timescale has been set, the Government aims to progress the commitments in the Strategy by 2030.

As announced at the UK-EU Leaders' Summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and EU have agreed to work towards a common Sanitary and Phytosanitary Area, which will mean pet owners will be able to get a multiuse pet passport valid for travel to the EU. Discussions on the SPS agreement are progressing, and Defra has committed, with the EU, to conclude negotiations before the next UK-EU Summit. Whilst negotiations are ongoing, we are unable to provide further details on delivery timelines for multiuse pet passports.

Defra have continued to engage with animal welfare charities, including on the withdrawal of certificates of exemption. Defra are still working to develop this process, so that owners who no longer believe that their dog meets the legal definition of an XL Bully type can apply to have their certificate of exemption withdrawn. Further details will be shared once the process has been finalised.

Defra have continued to engage with animal welfare charities, including on the withdrawal of certificates of exemption. Defra are still working to develop this process, so that owners who no longer believe that their dog meets the legal definition of an XL Bully type can apply to have their certificate of exemption withdrawn. Further details will be shared once the process has been finalised.

Defra engages regularly with farmers, veterinary professionals, scientists, devolved governments and livestock industry representatives on bluetongue virus (BTV-3). Baroness Hayman met industry leaders and veterinary representatives on 8 September to discuss the outbreak. The Secretary of State is also engaging directly with the farming sector, including at the NFU’s Back British Farming Day event on 9 September. Defra is supporting the industry-led Battle Bluetongue campaign to encourage vaccination, and signposting support through the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway. Defra will continue to work closely with industry and scientific experts to inform its response.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Crown Prosecution Service guidance indicates that attacks on other animals, including cats, may amount to a dog being dangerously out of control, particularly where a person is injured or may be injured. The police have the powers to seize dogs and owners may face imprisonment for up to 14 years and be banned from owning a dog. Enforcement following dog attacks is a matter for the police. This Government keeps dog control legislation including police powers under review and works with the police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations to promote responsible ownership, support enforcement, improve public education and strengthen data on dog attacks.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 August 2026 to Question UIN 23680 Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

The Government recognises the important contribution that greyhound racing makes to Britain's cultural heritage, sporting landscape and economy. The Department has not made a separate assessment of the economic and social contribution of greyhound racing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland individually. The most recent information available to the Department is provided by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB). According to GBGB, greyhound racing contributes approximately £166 million annually to Britain's GDP, around £52 million to the Exchequer, and supports approximately 5,400 jobs across Great Britain. The Government continues to engage regularly with the greyhound racing industry, including the GBGB, on issues relating to the sustainability, welfare and future development of the sport.

The UK is currently negotiating an SPS Agreement with the EU. These negotiations are at an advanced stage and expected to remove the requirement for Export Health Certificates (EHC). The Agreement will have implications for Official Veterinarians undertaking export certification, including the demand for EHC services. Defra isworking with the veterinary profession and wider industry stakeholders to monitor this capability and ensure an effective and well-managed transition.

Hare coursing remains a national wildlife crime priority and is one of the offences for which police forces most frequently seek support from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). Defra is providing £530,000 to the NWCU in 2026/27, strengthening its intelligence, data analysis and financial investigation capabilities to help disrupt criminal networks, identify illicit profits, and bring offenders to justice. New sentencing guidelines for hare coursing came into force on 1 June 2026. These should help ensure the courts fully recognise the significant harm and intimidation this serious crime poses to wildlife, farmers, and others across rural areas. This Government cannot confirm offending levels as hare coursing is not a ‘notifiable crime’. Hare coursing can also be ‘hidden’ under notifiable offences such as criminal damage if it has taken place as part of the same incident.

Hare coursing remains a national wildlife crime priority and is one of the offences for which police forces most frequently seek support from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). Defra is providing £530,000 to the NWCU in 2026/27, strengthening its intelligence, data analysis and financial investigation capabilities to help disrupt criminal networks, identify illicit profits, and bring offenders to justice. New sentencing guidelines for hare coursing came into force on 1 June 2026. These should help ensure the courts fully recognise the significant harm and intimidation this serious crime poses to wildlife, farmers, and others across rural areas. This Government cannot confirm offending levels as hare coursing is not a ‘notifiable crime’. Hare coursing can also be ‘hidden’ under notifiable offences such as criminal damage if it has taken place as part of the same incident.

Hare coursing remains a national wildlife crime priority and is one of the offences for which police forces most frequently seek support from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). Defra is providing £530,000 to the NWCU in 2026/27, strengthening its intelligence, data analysis and financial investigation capabilities to help disrupt criminal networks, identify illicit profits, and bring offenders to justice. New sentencing guidelines for hare coursing came into force on 1 June 2026. These should help ensure the courts fully recognise the significant harm and intimidation this serious crime poses to wildlife, farmers, and others across rural areas. This Government cannot confirm offending levels as hare coursing is not a ‘notifiable crime’. Hare coursing can also be ‘hidden’ under notifiable offences such as criminal damage if it has taken place as part of the same incident.

APHA holds data on the number of gamebird and egg imports. The age of the animal is not recorded on the import notifications, so Defra cannot provide data on gamebird chicks. In the interest of privacy, the department cannot publish information on the place of destination of the imports.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 08 September 2026 to Question UIN 23681 Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

I refer the Member for Falkirk to the answer provided on 17 July 2026 in response to UIN 18685.

The Government remains committed to reducing and replacing the use of animals in science, including dogs. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 the statutory principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement require animals to be used only where there is no scientifically satisfactory alternative, in the minimum numbers necessary, and with procedures refined to minimise suffering. Through the Replacing Animals in Science strategy, we are accelerating the development, validation and regulatory uptake of alternative methods, supported by investment, regulatory reform and strengthened delivery oversight. The strategy sets out a long-term vision to eliminate animal use in science wherever possible.

I refer the Hon Member to the answer provided on 15 July 2026 in response to Question 16739.

Defra has no current plans to introduce a registration and accreditation system for organisations that deliver wildlife rehabilitation services in England.

The UK-Faroe Islands Free Trade Agreement provides an important framework for the UK Government to engage with the Faroese Government. UK officials have and will continue to raise the UK's opposition to cetacean hunting at meetings of the Joint Committee established under the Agreement, which provides a valuable forum for discussions on issues of concern, and for which the agenda is mutually agreed in advance. The Faroese Government is in no doubt as to the strength of feeling and opposition in the UK to cetacean hunting.

The UK-Faroe Islands Free Trade Agreement provides an important framework for the UK Government to engage with the Faroese Government. UK officials have and will continue to raise the UK's opposition to cetacean hunting at meetings of the Joint Committee established under the Agreement, which provides a valuable forum for discussions on issues of concern. The Faroese Government is in no doubt as to the strength of feeling and opposition in the UK to cetacean hunting.

The UKRI Gateway to Research portal does not record whether projects involve the use of live animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Information is held separately by individual research councils and is not available as a UKRI-wide figure. The Medical Research Council identified 181 relevant grants in 2022, 166 in 2023, 155 in 2024 and 116 in 2025. Equivalent data for 2021 are unavailable. These figures exclude relevant research supported through MRC units and institutes, which is not reportable by calendar year. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council identified 74 relevant awards in 2021, 58 in 2022, 76 in 2023, 68 in 2024 and 56 in 2025.

It is not possible to provide an overall funding figure for research councils funding for animal-based research and the development of non-animal methods, as funding is not generally allocated to UKRI based on specific research approaches. UKRI funds research on the basis of scientific excellence and need. Through its standard funding processes, UKRI only supports research involving animals where no scientifically acceptable non-animal alternative exists and where researchers have properly considered and applied the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs). UKRI also supports non-animal approaches, including through investment in the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).

Any member of the public can use the statutory police complaints system to express dissatisfaction with the actions of the police or a police officer, providing they have been directly affected by those actions or lack of action. They can do so by making a complaint to the police force directly or via the portal on the website of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which also includes more information on the police complaints system.

No, this Government has not made such an estimate.

As set out in the Land Use Framework and the Animal Welfare Strategy for England, this Government committed to strengthening the evidence base on gamebird rearing, release and shooting in England. Defra’s Gamebird rapid evidence review was published in 2020 and is available here. Further research into these findings was published in 2025 and available here. A Call for Evidence, launched on 4 September will gather any further information and evidence on the potential environmental impacts of gamebird release, including native biodiversity and to improve our understanding of both the positive and negative impacts associated with these activities.

As set out in the Land Use Framework and the Animal Welfare Strategy for England, this Government committed to strengthening the evidence base on gamebird rearing, release and shooting in England. Defra’s Gamebird rapid evidence review was published in 2020 and is available here. Further research into these findings was published in 2025 and available here. A Call for Evidence, launched on 4 September will gather any further information and evidence on the potential environmental impacts of gamebird release, including native biodiversity and to improve our understanding of both the positive and negative impacts associated with these activities.

His Majesty’s Government has not made an estimate of the total amount of funding provided across all Government departments for scientific research involving the use of live animals. Public funding for research involving animals is provided through a range of organisations and programmes that support broader scientific and medical research objectives. These organisations and programmes have different data collection and reporting systems in place, and therefore this information cannot be consistently identified across Government.

His Majesty’s Government has not made an estimate of the total amount of funding provided across all Government departments for scientific research involving human-specific research methods and technologies. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invests in a range of research that supports human-specific approaches, including organ-on-a-chip technologies, cell-based assays, functional genomics and computer modelling. These activities are generally categorised within broader research programmes, and funding for human-specific research methods is not separately identified across Government.

Dogs are a specially protected species under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They may only be used in research where the applicant demonstrates that the scientific objective cannot be achieved using a scientifically satisfactory non-animal method or by using another species. Every proposed programme of work is assessed by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to assure that the use of animals is justified by the expected benefits, the minimum number of animals are used, and procedures are refined to minimise suffering. The Government committed to accelerating the replacement of animals in science wherever scientifically possible. In November 2025, the Government published Replacing animals in science: a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, backed by £75 million in funding. The strategy includes specific commitments to reduce the use of dogs in science by 2030.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 already provides a binding statutory requirement to use a non-animal method where a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy that does not involve protected animals is reasonably and practicably available. Compliance with this requirement is considered as part of the assessment and authorisation of project licences. The Government therefore does not consider that alternatives are merely a discretionary aid, or that a further statutory mechanism is required to make their use mandatory. Formal validation can support confidence in and regulatory acceptance of a non-animal method, but validation alone does not determine whether that method is scientifically satisfactory for every proposed use. That assessment must take account of the method’s relevance, reliability and practical availability for the particular scientific purpose. The Government is committed to accelerating the development, validation and uptake of non-animal methods. Its November 2025 strategy, led by the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and backed by £75 million, sets out measures to strengthen validation, regulatory confidence and adoption, while maintaining robust standards of scientific quality and human, animal and environmental protection

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 already provides a binding statutory requirement to use a non-animal method where a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy that does not involve protected animals is reasonably and practicably available. Compliance with this requirement is considered as part of the assessment and authorisation of project licences. The Government therefore does not consider that alternatives are merely a discretionary aid, or that a further statutory mechanism is required to make their use mandatory. Formal validation can support confidence in and regulatory acceptance of a non-animal method, but validation alone does not determine whether that method is scientifically satisfactory for every proposed use. That assessment must take account of the method’s relevance, reliability and practical availability for the particular scientific purpose. The Government is committed to accelerating the development, validation and uptake of non-animal methods. Its November 2025 strategy, led by the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and backed by £75 million, sets out measures to strengthen validation, regulatory confidence and adoption, while maintaining robust standards of scientific quality and human, animal and environmental protection

The Government is carefully considering the implications of the recent Upper Tribunal judgment concerning Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 24 will remain in force while that work is undertaken.

The Government is carefully considering the implications of the recent Upper Tribunal judgment concerning Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 24 will remain in force while that work is undertaken.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including any particular aggravating or mitigating factors. In July 2023, updated sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offences came into effect, taking into account the increased maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment introduced in 2021. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which also monitors and evaluates all definitive guidelines, as per its statutory duty to do so.  We have no current plans to request that the Council review guidelines in this area.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including any particular aggravating or mitigating factors. In July 2023, updated sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offences came into effect, taking into account the increased maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment introduced in 2021. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which also monitors and evaluates all definitive guidelines, as per its statutory duty to do so.  We have no current plans to request that the Council review guidelines in this area.

The Association of Microchip Database Operators has been working closely with commercial providers to develop a single point of search platform which is expected to go live this autumn.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Crown Prosecution Service guidance indicates that attacks on other animals, including cats, may amount to a dog being dangerously out of control, particularly where a person is injured or may be injured. Owners may face imprisonment for up to 14 years and be banned from owning a dog. Enforcement following dog attacks is a matter for the police. This Government keeps dog control legislation under review and works with the police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations to promote responsible ownership, support enforcement, improve public education and strengthen data on dog attacks.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Crown Prosecution Service guidance indicates that attacks on other animals, including cats, may amount to a dog being dangerously out of control, particularly where a person is injured or may be injured. Owners may face imprisonment for up to 14 years and be banned from owning a dog. Enforcement following dog attacks is a matter for the police. This Government keeps dog control legislation under review and works with the police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations to promote responsible ownership, support enforcement, improve public education and strengthen data on dog attacks.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Crown Prosecution Service guidance indicates that attacks on other animals, including cats, may amount to a dog being dangerously out of control, particularly where a person is injured or may be injured. Owners may face imprisonment for up to 14 years and be banned from owning a dog. Enforcement following dog attacks is a matter for the police. This Government keeps dog control legislation under review and works with the police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations to promote responsible ownership, support enforcement, improve public education and strengthen data on dog attacks.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Crown Prosecution Service guidance indicates that attacks on other animals, including cats, may amount to a dog being dangerously out of control, particularly where a person is injured or may be injured. Owners may face imprisonment for up to 14 years and be banned from owning a dog. Enforcement following dog attacks is a matter for the police. This Government keeps dog control legislation under review and works with the police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations to promote responsible ownership, support enforcement, improve public education and strengthen data on dog attacks.

As set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, Defra has established a working group on fur, involving both industry experts and those who support restrictions on the trade in fur. The primary focus of the group will be to explore animal welfare concerns relating to the fur trade and the different ways in which they could be addressed. The department will seek appropriate input from relevant experts as needed as part of this. Along with the previous government’s call for evidence and the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on fur, outputs from this working group will be used to inform future policy decisions on this issue.

The Home Office keeps the quality and consistency of non-technical summaries published under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) under review. In May 2026, the Government accepted recommendations from the Animals in Science Committee to improve the transparency, clarity and consistency of non-technical summaries and retrospective assessments. The Government response and delivery plan are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-technical-summaries-and-retrospective-assessments-response-from-lord-hanson. For Project 4, Image Guided Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease, the Home Office Regulator was satisfied that the application contained sufficient information to undertake the statutory harm-benefit analysis and inform the licensing decision. This assessment considered not only the prospective severity classification, but also the nature, duration and likelihood of the potential harms, the numbers and proportion of animals likely to be affected, the expected benefits, and the measures in place to minimise suffering. The expected severity classifications indicate the maximum level of harm that an animal could reasonably be expected to experience under the authorised procedures; it does not mean that every mouse or rat in the procedures will experience suffering at that level. The application also sets out refinements, monitoring arrangements and humane end-points intended to prevent or minimise such harms.

The Home Office keeps the quality and consistency of non-technical summaries published under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) under review. In May 2026, the Government accepted recommendations from the Animals in Science Committee to improve the transparency, clarity and consistency of non-technical summaries and retrospective assessments. The Government response and delivery plan are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-technical-summaries-and-retrospective-assessments-response-from-lord-hanson. For Project 4, Image Guided Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease, the Home Office Regulator was satisfied that the application contained sufficient information to undertake the statutory harm-benefit analysis and inform the licensing decision. This assessment considered not only the prospective severity classification, but also the nature, duration and likelihood of the potential harms, the numbers and proportion of animals likely to be affected, the expected benefits, and the measures in place to minimise suffering. The expected severity classifications indicate the maximum level of harm that an animal could reasonably be expected to experience under the authorised procedures; it does not mean that every mouse or rat in the procedures will experience suffering at that level. The application also sets out refinements, monitoring arrangements and humane end-points intended to prevent or minimise such harms.

As set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, Defra will consult on banning carbon dioxide gas stunning of pigs and on possible timescales for phasing out this method. Further details will be set out later this year.

This Government has no plans at this time to reintroduce a dog licensing scheme, as mandatory microchipping already provides a national registration framework for linking dogs to their keepers.

The 2025 figure of 2.54 million represents a decrease from 2.64 million procedures in 2024 and is the lowest number recorded under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). The Government remains committed to reducing and replacing the use of animals in science. The statutory principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement require animals to be used only where there is no scientifically satisfactory alternative, in the minimum numbers necessary, and with procedures refined to minimise suffering. In November 2025, DSIT published its Replacing Animals in Science strategy, backed by £75 million, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. The 2025 statistics do not alter that policy approach. Where scientifically satisfactory alternatives are not yet available, carefully regulated animal use may continue where necessary to protect human and animal health and the environment.

The Home Office does not produce guidance to police forces regarding the prosecution of offenders who assault service animals. Decisions on whether to take action against individuals are an operational matter for forces.

Users of the Northern Ireland Pet Travel Scheme made 15,141 journeys from Great Britain to Northern Ireland using a Pet Travel Document, covering 11,690 individual pets, from 4 June 2025 (the date the Scheme launched) to 3 June 2026. The Scheme removes the need for health treatments or animal health certificates for those travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with their pet or assistance dog.

I refer the Hon Member to the answer provided on 8 September 2026 in response to Question 23800.

The Government’s direction is unequivocal: we want to replace animal testing wherever scientifically possible. The £75 million Replacing Animals in Science Strategy is a practical programme to make that happen—accelerating innovation, validation and adoption so that robust non-animal methods move from development into routine use. Where alternatives do not yet exist, animal use will remain tightly controlled, but our objective is to reduce that dependence progressively and decisively. Project licences granted in 2026 to date under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have authorised the use of approximately 3.6 million animals over the lifetime of those licences. This figure represents the maximum numbers authorised for each workstream of a project licence and does not necessarily reflect the numbers that will actually be used, nor account for the continued use or re-use of animals across a project. As a result, this figure may overestimate the number of individual animals expected to be used under each licence and actual use may be lower. The number of procedures conducted each year is reported in the annual statistics on scientific procedures. The latest published statistics show that 2.54 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain in 2025, this is a decrease from 2.64 million in 2024 and the lowest number under The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. All project licence applications must demonstrate full application of the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. This means animals cannot be used where a suitable non-animal alternative is available, the minimum number of animals must be used to achieve the scientific objective, and procedures must be refined to minimise harm. These obligations continue throughout the lifetime of a licence.

As laid out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, and following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report on the topic, we will consult on introducing humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish into legislation. Further details will be set out in due course.

The Ministry of Justice published data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, including hare coursing and game poaching. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data from 1 June 2026 is not available and is scheduled for publication on 22 October 2026.

The Ministry of Justice published data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, including hare coursing and game poaching. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data from 1 June 2026 is not available and is scheduled for publication on 22 October 2026.

No one should face discrimination, harassment or abuse because they are disabled or because they rely on an assistance dog. The Equality Act 2010 places a general duty on businesses and service providers to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled people, including people with assistance dogs, access to goods and services so they are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for enforcing the Equality Act. It has published guidance - ‘Assistance Dogs: a guide for businesses and service providers’ - to help businesses understand what they can do to meet their legal duties to assistance dog owners. Duties and protections under the Equality Act are ultimately enforceable through the courts, and anybody who thinks that they have been discriminated against - including where access to an assistance dog has been refused - can take legal action to seek to resolve the issue. The EHRC will support people who have experienced discrimination through that process. This Government is determined to tackle all forms of hate crime, including those targeting disabled people, wherever they occur and whoever is responsible. Where criminal offences are motivated by hostility towards disability, we expect the police to investigate robustly and work with the Crown Prosecution Service to bring offenders to justice.

The Home Office does not comment on planned audits or inspections at individual licensed establishments, as doing so could undermine the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. The Animals in Science Regulation Unit keeps licensed establishments, including MBR Acres, under ongoing review and uses a risk-based approach to determine the nature, timing and frequency of regulatory activity. This assessment takes account of relevant intelligence, compliance history and emerging risks to animal welfare, including those arising from extreme weather conditions.

The most recent unannounced audit at MBR Acres was carried out on 25 April 2024. Since then, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) has carried out two announced audits at the establishment, on 4 November 2025 and 10 July 2026. ASRU determines the nature and frequency of its regulatory oversight of licensed establishments using a risk-based approach.

The Government has committed to a phased, proportionate and evidence-based approach to developing welfare arrangements for decapod crustaceans used in science. Existing industry led welfare standards and evidence of current practice will inform this work. The initial phase includes considering and supporting appropriate baseline welfare standards, alongside voluntary reporting and further work to address evidence and technical gaps. This will support welfare improvements while building the evidence needed to inform any future consideration of including decapods as protected animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government will engage with scientific and industry representatives, animal welfare organisations and other relevant stakeholders as the work progresses. This engagement will help ensure that the approach reflects scientific evidence, existing good practice and the practical implications for those using decapods in research.

The Government is committed to improving care for people with allergies, and ensuring they receive high-quality care and support, and access to the latest treatments. The Expert Advisory Group on Allergy (EAGA), co-chaired by the Department and the National Allergy Strategy Group, meets regularly to bring together stakeholders across the Government, the National Health Service, voluntary organisations, professional bodies, and patient representative groups, to consider how allergy care and support could be improved. The purpose of the EAGA is to inform policy making, and to identify priorities in relation to the holistic care of people with allergies. The EAGA last met on 2 September 2026. The National Allergy Strategy Group published its National Allergy Strategy earlier this year in March. The Government will thoroughly review all of the recommendations included in the National Allergy Strategy and will carefully consider the feasibility and viability of implementing each of the recommendations aimed at the Government.

The Government considers that there are established and proportionate arrangements for oversight of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Animals in Science Committee provides independent, statutory advice to Ministers on matters relating to the Act, including the protection of animals and the sharing of good practice. Parliamentary oversight is exercised through Parliamentary Questions, debates, ministerial correspondence and scrutiny by relevant parliamentary committees, supported by the publication of annual statistics and reports from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit. These arrangements have been strengthened through the establishment of the Animals in Science Regulation Governance Board. Operational later this year, the Board will provide external scrutiny, advice and challenge to the Home Office on the Regulator’s performance, strategy and risk. Its role is distinct from that of the Animals in Science Committee: the Committee provides independent advice on policy and the operation of the Act, while the Governance Board supports effective regulatory delivery.

Under section 2A of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (“ASPA”), a regulated procedure must not be used where a scientifically satisfactory alternative method or testing strategy that does not entail the use of a protected animal is available for the intended purpose. Formal validation or qualification are not specified in section 2A as separate legal preconditions or thresholds. Whether a method is scientifically satisfactory and applicable in the particular circumstances is assessed on the available scientific evidence. Validation or qualification may provide relevant evidence in making that assessment, including where results must meet wider regulatory requirements, but the absence of either does not, by itself, permit animal use where the non-animal method is otherwise scientifically satisfactory for the intended purpose.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, severity assessments measure harms to an animal during a regulated procedure and reflect the highest severity experienced during that procedure, including any cumulative procedural effects. Harms arising from non-procedural events, such as transport and housing, are therefore not within the scope of the severity assessment framework. These matters are instead addressed through separate welfare, transport, licensing and care requirements.

All procedures using protected animals, including the LD50 and LC50 tests, are subject to strict regulation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). No project licence can be granted unless a Home Office inspector has completed a harm-benefit analysis and concluded that the likely benefits justify the harms to the animals. As part of that assessment, inspectors consider the scientific rationale, whether the proposed method is appropriate to achieve the stated benefits, and whether suitable non-animal alternatives are available. The use of animals is authorised only where those tests are judged necessary, justified and proportionate.

I refer the Hon Member to the answer provided on 30 June 2026 in response to Question 11617.

The majority of licences authorising the use of dogs and containing service type activities are for undertaking Regulatory Toxicology testing (safety testing) for purposes including human and veterinary pharmaceuticals and chemicals. A small number allow the production of biological samples, the development of veterinary treatments and pre-regulatory testing. All activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are subject to a rigorous licensing process. Before a licence can be granted, applicants must demonstrate that the expected benefits justify the potential harms to the animals involved, and the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (the 3Rs) have been fully applied. This means that harms to animals must be minimised and the work cannot legally be authorised if there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative to the use of animals.

There are currently 32 active project licences which authorise the use of dogs in scientific procedures. Across all projects the maximum number of animals authorised for use is 31,816. Of the 32 licences, there are 23 licences carrying out ‘service’ type activities, with a maximum of 29,589 animals authorised for use. A better indication of the scale of actual use is provided by the annual accredited official statistics. In 2025, 2,889 procedures involving dogs were carried out in Great Britain. Although this was an increase of around 9% on 2024, it was approximately one third lower than the 4,340 procedures recorded in 2020. The five-year trend is therefore downward overall, despite year-to-year variation. This annual evidence is a more meaningful guide to likely use than the authorised maximum. All activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are subject to a rigorous licensing process. Before a licence can be granted, applicants must demonstrate that the expected benefits justify the potential harms to the animals involved, and the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (the 3Rs) have been fully applied. This means that harms to animals must be minimised and the work cannot legally be authorised if there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative to the use of animals.

As set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, the government is considering how we can support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds. The Department has not made such assessments of comparison between UK-grown chickens and chickens reared abroad.

As set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, the government is considering how we can support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds. The Department has not made such assessments of comparison between UK-grown chickens and chickens reared abroad.

There are currently no plans to mandate or ban the use of specific breeds of chicken. As set out in the Animal Welfare Strategy, the government is considering how it can support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds.

Current estimates are that around 95% of meat chickens in the UK are fast growing breeds. The Department has not assessed the scale of the use of fast-growing chicken breeds in the UK in terms of UK retail sales.

The Government has not made an estimate of the level of funding provided for (a) animal-based research and (b) research using human-specific methods in the latest year for which figures are available. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invests in a wide range of research, including animal research and research that supports human-specific approaches such as organ-on-a-chip technologies, cell-based assays, functional genomics and computer modelling. These activities are generally categorised within broader research programmes, and funding is not separately identified on this basis across Government.

The Government has not made an estimate of how much funding was provided for projects involving human-specific research methods in each year between 2020 and 2025, and does not hold a breakdown by funding body. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invests in a range of research that supports human-specific approaches, including organ-on-a-chip technologies, cell-based assays, functional genomics and computer modelling. These activities are generally categorised within broader research programmes, and funding for human-specific research methods is not separately identified across Government.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), the Home Office may review an establishment licence where information raises concerns about compliance or animal welfare. In deciding whether to vary, suspend or revoke a licence, it considers the available evidence, the nature and seriousness of any breach, its actual or potential impact on animal welfare, the licence holder’s compliance history and whether the proposed action is necessary and proportionate. A licence may be suspended urgently where this is necessary to safeguard animal welfare. Decisions are taken case by case in accordance with ASPA and the published Animals in Science Regulation Unit compliance framework. Concerns raised about MBR Acres have been assessed through these established regulatory processes. Published inspection reports found no evidence of non-compliance with the requirements of ASPA, associated licence conditions, or the statutory Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The Regulator also carried out an announced audit on 10 July 2026, following a period of high temperatures in Great Britain. No immediate animal welfare concerns were identified by inspectors on the day of the visit.

The Government has interpreted the question as referring to section 5B(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as the Act does not contain a section 5(5)(b). Before granting a project licence, the Home Office must evaluate the proposed programme of work. This includes assessing whether the applicant has demonstrated that the purpose of the work cannot be achieved by a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy that does not involve protected animals. Where such an alternative is available, the use of animals cannot be authorised. Qualified Home Office inspectors scrutinise the evidence provided by applicants, including the scientific justification for the work, compliance with the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, and the proposed use of any specially protected species. As with all species, dogs may be used only where their use is specifically justified and the relevant statutory criteria are met. A licence cannot be granted unless the expected benefits of the programme are judged to justify the likely harms to the animals. These statutory requirements and the independent scrutiny applied during licence assessment provide safeguards against the use of protected animals where a scientifically satisfactory non-animal alternative is available. The Home Office has also commissioned the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research to review the project licence application process, including how information on the 3Rs is provided and assessed. Its recommendations are expected later this year and will inform consideration of any further improvements to the process.

Defra meets with stakeholders regularly to understand issues and trends that are affecting the companion animal sector, including the impact of the rise in the cost of living on pet keepers and welfare organisations. This Government does not provide grant funding to animal welfare charities and rescue shelters, however, it welcomes the support such stakeholders are providing such as through pet food banks and financial support with veterinary treatment, which is helping to reduce the pressure on pet owners and the risk of pet abandonment. Additionally, the Codes of Practice for Dogs and Cats remind prospective owners that owning a pet is a major responsibility, including financial and time implications which should be considered before getting a pet.

The department regularly updates GOV.UK when there are changes to pet travel rules. Defra always aim to keep the guidance clear, accurate and up-to-date. The department recently updated the pet travel pages following the EU introduction of new rules affecting those travelling with their pets from Great Britain into the EU. Defra reviews its guidance frequently and any future updates will be published on the relevant pages.

DSIT’s most recent assessment is set out in its November 2025 strategy, Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. This reports that alternative methods can already replace some uses of animals and that advances including organoids, organ-on-a-chip systems and computational approaches offer significant further potential. However, the maturity and regulatory acceptance of alternatives vary, and scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods are not yet available for all purposes for which dogs are used. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, a project involving dogs may be authorised only where its purpose cannot be achieved by a scientifically satisfactory method that does not use protected animals. Applicants must demonstrate how they have applied the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, and the availability of alternatives is considered during the project licence assessment. DSIT is supporting wider adoption through its £75 million strategy programme, including investment in the development and validation of alternative methods, action to increase regulatory confidence and acceptance, and new infrastructure and partnerships to support their use. This is intended to accelerate the replacement of animal procedures, including those involving dogs, wherever scientifically robust alternatives become available.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, licensed establishments must maintain records of the source, use and final disposal of all protected animals bred, kept or used at the establishment for regulated activity. These records must be available to Home Office Inspectors on request. The Home Office does not centrally hold annual establishment-level data on the number of beagles bred by MBR Acres, the number euthanised before use in regulated procedures, the reasons for euthanasia, or the number rehomed. The Home Office publishes annual statistics on the use of animals in scientific procedures, which include information on procedures involving dogs. These statistics are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals. However, these statistics do not provide the requested figures for animals re-homed. In addition, project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are required to include prospective estimates of the number of animals expected to be used. This information is included in the published non-technical summaries of project licences granted available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/non-technical-summaries-of-projects-granted-under-aspa.

The Home Office keeps the effectiveness of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit under review. The Home Office has expanded the inspectorate, introduced additional expertise in data analysis and quality management, and is developing a revised, risk-based audit programme, including greater use of unannounced audits. A new governance board is also being established to provide additional support and scrutiny of regulatory performance, which will be operational later this year. ASRU is independent in its regulatory decision-making. Its inspectors assess licence applications and compliance matters on their merits, applying scientific and professional judgement within the statutory framework of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. ASRU remains accountable to the Home Office for its overall performance, but Ministers do not direct individual regulatory decisions.