Irene Campbell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is worth questioning the quality of care for animals used in animal experiments. Answers to written parliamentary questions indicate that only one licence application has been rejected over the past seven years, indicating that licences to conduct animal experiments are rarely refused. Applicants are also allowed to adjust and resubmit licence applications to enable them to be granted; for the past four years, applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted. According to Animal Free Research, a group that supports scientists to transition from animal-based to human-specific medical research and provides expertise in this area, 154,904 animals were involved in breaches of animal use licence conditions in 2023. Breaches included non-compliance, adverse welfare outcomes, failure to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, in some cases for up to six days. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials even though they have passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. We already know that our bodies are very different to those of other species and that animals are not a reliable testing method—a simple example is the number of foods that are poisonous to animals but not to humans, such as chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs. One example of that failure is the case of sepsis, a condition that kills 48,000 people in the UK every year. Researchers rely on testing on mice, yet hundreds of drugs that have passed tests on mice have gone on to fail in human trials, demonstrating the unsurprising fact that sepsis in humans is different to sepsis in mice. Researchers from Stanford and Harvard have shown that the genetic responses to inflammation in mice are profoundly different from those in humans, so why do we continue to undertake this horrific testing? I could describe the process of inducing sepsis in mice—I had actually written it out for this debate—but it is extremely distressing, and many would find it very upsetting. I suggest that any Member interested in finding out what defines a severe animal experiment should look it up. It is, indeed, truly horrific. Many other disease models have a history of poor translatability in humans, such as sepsis, as we have just heard, or type 2 diabetes, which could be prime candidates for phasing in more human-relevant models. An example from many years ago is thalidomide, which was tested and tested on mice, and caused no problems whatsoever; however, when taken by pregnant women, many babies were born without limbs, and with other problems. When that drug was tested on mice, it had no impact whatsoever on the baby mice when they were born. To use diabetes as an example, rodents differ from humans on every tier of glucose regulation, yet they are still used in experiments rather than relevant human-based methods. The Labour manifesto commits the Government to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society to phase out animals in medical testing. Science is—

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. Moving towards animal-free research will take some time, which is why we refer to “phasing out”. The funding structures, particularly relating to academic research, have to shift. I thank her for her intervention.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with everything my hon. Friend said. It is important to note that only 14% of the UK public feel it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research. With that in mind, banning the use of dogs in medical research could be our first step towards fully phasing out research on animals. We should be encouraged to follow in the footsteps of other countries, such as the USA, which has recently published a road map, with the aim of making animal testing the exception, rather than the norm, for pre-clinical safety toxicity testing over the next three to five years.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  Science is showing us that non-animal methods are effective, more relevant and more accurate to the human body. Innovative technologies known as new-approach methodologies can effectively and safely replace animal experiments. To achieve this, there is a critical need for a robust timetable to be introduced. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on the road map that will get us there.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, this is about phasing out animal experiments in research. I hope that the example of scientific experimentation the hon. Gentleman has given would be possible without animal research in years to come.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and fully agree with everything he has said. I will speak about those matters a bit later. To achieve those aims, we must consider several things. There needs to be a serious shift in funding towards non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding “represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.” That needs to shift considerably. The cosmetics brand Lush is one of the groups working to fill this funding gap, with prize funds that support initiatives to end or replace animal testing. Recent winners range from organ-on-a-chip technologies that emulate the human liver, developments in in-silico models to predict cellular processes at a molecular level, and a research group improving multi-material bioprinting platforms for creating 3D human organ-on-a-chip models. These non-animal methods can be far more relevant and accurate to human bodies, compared with testing on other species. Given the success of the cosmetic industry phase-out, this proven approach could be replicated and provide a legislative blueprint for the next steps in the medical sector. In March 2013, a complete marketing ban on all endpoints for animal testing on cosmetics was introduced; on the day of the ban’s introduction in 2013, the European Commission confirmed that between 2007 and 2011, a total of €238 million was invested in research into alternatives to animal testing in the EU, reflecting major investment envisaged for use well beyond the cosmetics industry.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Animal Experiments: Medical Research · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. This issue is very important to me, and to many of my constituents who contact me about this matter. I recognise that there are many views on this topic, on both sides of this debate, but it is clear that the scientific evidence for ending these procedures becomes stronger by the day. I am also a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society, and I must also declare that interest. Many people may not be aware that five animals are used in research every minute of every day in the UK. Non-technical summaries of animal experiment licences granted between January and March 2025 show that over 2 million animals were approved for use across 125 projects, including 120 beagles, and there was a further licence for invasive brain surgery on monkeys. Many species are used, including dogs, cats, rats, horses, mice, zebra, fish and chickens. Many may be surprised by that list, but the simple message is that animal experiments are failing patients, and I will say a bit more about that later. I recently led a petition debate in Westminster Hall on immediately banning the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. This petition now has over 240,000 signatures, which I think is a great demonstration of public opinion on this issue. During that debate, I quoted from a debate in the other place in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill, in which it was stated that experiments on dogs might be discontinued, yet a century later, we are still here debating this issue.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Swimming Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate. First, I declare an interest: in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran I chair the Splash group, which is working hard to restore and reopen the outdoor tidal pool in the town of Saltcoats. It has actually been in existence since about the 1890s, so that we can keep swimming pools going. Outdoor swimming has never been so popular, and the pool would be a great asset once again to our town and the constituency. Earlier today I hosted an event with UK Future Lidos, which is here to promote the excellent contribution that lidos make to public health, overall health and wellbeing, the local economy and so much more. The event was met with great enthusiasm, with many attending and showing much interest in visiting and supporting local lidos. Swimming is very popular in the UK, and in Scotland it is one of our most successful sports. It is one of the nation’s highest participation sports, and 95% of Scottish people agree that swimming pools are important for safety. Nine in 10 agree that the closure of swimming pools is bad for local communities and a cause for concern.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Swimming Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with the hon. Member’s comments. Additionally, 93% of Scottish people think that all children should learn to swim, and 91% think that learning to swim is an important part of every child’s education. It can obviously save lives, especially for people living on the coast, as we do. Swimming is one of the most popular participation sports for all. However, many pool operators are passing on rising operational costs to pool users, making swimming a less affordable and accessible activity, which is a challenge. Scotland still has the highest drowning statistics of all the home nations, and it is important that we help pools access funding to keep affordable and safe swimming available to all, to protect the heritage of our cultural assets, and ultimately to save lives.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Much of what I was going to say has already been raised, so I will make just a few brief points, because I care deeply about this subject. First, I should declare an interest: right after the debate, I am hosting an event in the Jubilee Room with Humane World for Animals about ending the use of cruel mother pig cages. At the event, there will be a life-sized replica of a farrowing crate to show just how confined mother pigs are when they are kept in them for weeks and weeks. I encourage hon. Members to come along. As we have heard, every year in the UK 200,000 sows are confined in farrowing crates. Those sows can spend almost a quarter of their adult lives in crates where they do not even have enough room to turn around. That is unacceptable. The vast majority of Scots care as deeply about this issue as I do. When polled earlier this year, 84% of Scots said that farrowing crates should be banned, either immediately or at least within the next five years. I know that the Government are looking carefully at the issue, alongside ending the use of enriched cages for hens, and I very much welcome that. It is important to be aware that around 8 million laying hens live their lives in tiny and cramped cages, in what must be a somewhat miserable existence followed by, ultimately, a sad death. I think most of us here would agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and that we should be proud of the many high animal welfare standards that we currently have. In fact, 95% of the UK’s 88 trading partners have lower animal welfare standards than our own domestic requirements, and we have heard quite a lot about that already. For example, over half of UK pork comes from countries that have sow stalls, which, as we have heard, have been banned in the UK since 1999. UK sheep production is at a 39-year low while Australian imports surge; we heard about that earlier. Phasing out low animal welfare imports that do not meet our own animal welfare standards is urgently required. Additionally, mandatory animal welfare labelling —for example, of eggs, chicken and pork—could help consumers make more informed choices. We have heard about that already. DEFRA proposed a mandatory method of production welfare label in a public consultation that closed in March 2024, and I think the discussion so far today suggests people would like that to go ahead. Another area that has not been raised yet is that of male chicks. In the UK, between 40 million and 45 million male chicks each year are culled in a process called “hatch and dispatch,” as they cannot lay eggs or be grown for meat. Sometimes chicks are crushed with rollers or minced with blades while they are fully conscious. However, in France and Germany, this practice is banned. In-ovo sexing technology allows the sex of the egg to be identified before the chick can feel pain and it is estimated that implementing this technology in the UK would add less than the cost of 1p per egg. That is definitely worth considering; there is a whole lot to consider today. Finally, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for introducing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on all the points and ideas that have been raised so far.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  When the NHS was introduced, it made the biggest positive changes ever to the health of the general population. The original “How to use your NHS” booklet from 1948 stated: “It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone—rich or poor, man, woman or child—can use it or any part of it.” On the topic of dentistry, it said: “After 5th July you can go to any dentist taking part in the new arrangements (there will be a list at your Post Office).” At that time, 83% of registered dentists signed up to work in the NHS. Currently, in England, approximately 66% are signed up to work in the NHS, a significant reduction since the early days that demonstrates a clear barrier to access. As a former NHS manager in Scotland, I have seen the importance of early intervention when it comes to health inequalities, particularly in dentistry. Scotland too has an access crisis, with decreasing numbers of NHS participating dentists. Naturally, those lower levels of participation affect patient access to NHS dental services, and dentists lose the chance to pick up early signs of decay, cancers and other serious issues, which results in higher costs for the NHS and worse outcomes for patients. Additionally, children and adults from the most deprived areas were less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have seen their dentist within the last two years. Recent statistics from Public Health Scotland showed that 55.9% of children from the most deprived areas have seen their dentist in the last two years, compared with 75.8% for children in the least deprived areas. Those figures drop to 42.7% and 53.5% for adults. In September 2008, the gap in child participation between the most and least deprived areas was three percentage points. That increased to seven percentage points by 2010, 18 percentage points in 2021, and then 20 percentage points in 2023. We cannot let that continue. As oral health inequalities continue to grow, it is important that our NHS strategy involves a focus on increasing participation and access in more deprived areas. Otherwise, we will continue to see further such worrying trends, which cause more serious problems further down the line.

• 21 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I want to look at things in a positive way for a moment. In my constituency, the local newspaper, the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald , highlights that the North Ayrshire table tennis club holds classes for people with Parkinson’s, and that the activity has been very well received. In 2024, a constituent of mine, Steve Morley from Stevenston, who took up table tennis to help with his symptoms after his Parkinson’s diagnosis, played at the World Masters in Rome. That is excellent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to provide support for those with Parkinson’s who are keen to keep active?

• 14 May 2025 · Carer’s Leave · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for securing the debate. It is an important topic and it is a privilege to be here. I used to do a lot of work with carers and young carers in my job in the NHS, and I used to visit some of the Ayrshire carers centres. One thing that people told me was important to them was getting a break, whether it be a day out or a few days away, and another was getting peer support from other carers. Respite has already been mentioned. Do you agree that it is important for carers to get a break and opportunities for peer support?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Let me begin by declaring an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—I am keen to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later. The petition, entitled, “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, was created by Maria Iriart, and as of today has almost 236,000 signatures, which is an incredible achievement. Maria is here today, and I thank her for coming along. The petition goes on to say: “As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment. In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog’s throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.” When looking at Hansard for other debates on animal testing—particularly testing on dogs—I found an interesting starting point in a debate in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill. In that debate from almost a century ago, Lord Banbury was mentioned as quoting the eminent surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby, who said: “Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.” —[ Official Report , 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.] Yet, here we are, nearly 100 years later, discussing the very same issue. An opinion poll conducted for the UK Government by Ipsos MORI in 2018 found that only 14% of the UK public feel that it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research to benefit people. This is unsurprising, as we know that dogs have high emotional and intellectual capabilities, and studies have found that they can feel empathy, sense sadness or fear and demonstrate genuine human bonding. The UK Home Office regulator is intended to conduct assessments of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections, and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. To enforce the regulations, establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including vets, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, as well as an ethical review body. The Government responded to the petition on 5 March 2025 to clarify that they do not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. However, hopefully this debate will reignite that discussion and subsequent decisions.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2025 · Barnett Formula: NHS Funding · Hansard source

  More

  There has been a noticeable increase in the number of people contacting my office about accessing GP services, and about long waiting times for hospital appointments and operations. Those who live in the Isle of Arran and actually get an appointment often cannot get to it, because they cannot get a ferry there and back on the same day. That is a different point, but as a former manager in the NHS, I have seen the consequences of the shortage of GPs in Scotland. There has been a recent successful recruitment campaign in different parts of England; does the Minister agree that it is time for the Scottish Government to utilise the Barnett consequentials in order to improve access to NHS services in Scotland through robust workforce planning, and to follow the example of the NHS in England and get GPs successfully recruited?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Barnett Formula: NHS Funding · Hansard source

  More

  3. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the impact of the Barnett formula on funding for the NHS in Scotland.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Trail Hunting · Hansard source

  More

  The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that out of control hounds on trail hunts have harmed people, pets and themselves in residential areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that trail hunting should be banned as soon as possible to close the loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I agree with his point. At the time of the Elections Act 2022, the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, whose corresponding Department was responsible for introducing the Act, also concluded that there was no need for such statements and no evidence to justify their introduction. The recent Backbench Business Committee debate on political finance rules mentioned some case studies and evidence from previous elections of overseas donations. For example, the 2020 report of the Intelligence and Security Committee found that Russian oligarchs had used their business interests, donations to charities and political parties to influence UK affairs.