Michael Wheeler MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A recently elected Reform councillor in my constituency believes that the best way to regenerate Eccles, which he described as a problem area, is to turn it into the UK’s Dubai. It might surprise him to learn that the council has already brought the town centre into public hands and, during the consultation, not one single resident raised the prospect of “Dubeccles”. Our communities need regeneration led by genuine involvement of local people, like that being in delivered in Brookhouse and Peel Green through Pride in Place. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time to ensure that local people lead in the regeneration of their towns?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. This Labour Government have ensured that, as of this month, workers in Worsley and Eccles and across the country get sick pay from day one, including low-paid workers. As chair of the USDAW parliamentary group, and having campaigned for this, I welcome this so much. Does the Chancellor agree that it is only Labour, with its trade union link, that is on the side of working people?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Worsley and Eccles · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly welcome the steps that the Government have taken to bring down my constituents’ energy bills from the start of this month. However, the effects of the war in Iran are now beginning to feed through into higher food prices. Pressures on oil and fertiliser costs are likely to intensify, and I am concerned about increases in the price of my constituents’ weekly shop at a time when their budgets are already strained. Will the Chancellor outline what steps the Government have taken to protect my constituents in Worsley and Eccles from rising food prices?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Worsley and Eccles · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she has taken to help support people with the cost of living in Worsley and Eccles constituency.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I welcome the upcoming drop next week in the energy price cap, which I know will help my constituents. With the Government’s focus on the cost of living, we are all concerned that events in the middle east will trigger a price shock in the market, making that work more difficult. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking to reduce my constituents’ energy bills?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  While cost of living pressures are affecting people across my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, young families face a perfect storm. Whether it is housing costs, expensive childcare or student loans, many young families are struggling, and research shows that the cost of living crisis is holding people back from even starting a family. Will the Chancellor outline what measures the Government are taking to alleviate the financial burdens on young families, in addition to their welcome moves to expand free childcare?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  9. What fiscal steps she has taken to help reduce the cost of living for families.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, residents of Peel Green and the surrounding area, including the enthusiastic pupils of Salford City academy, are looking to get their hands on the Pride in Place money. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are at the forefront, they take the lead, and they decide?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and of course I agree. ASRU is tasked with licensing animal experiments and, importantly, ensuring compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The reason for the Act is to protect animals and to require the use of non-animal alternatives wherever scientifically possible, yet the report shows far too many incidents in which animals were harmed, injured or killed because licence conditions were breached or basic standards were not met. These are not minor administrative errors. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) said, we are talking about animals drowning, starving to death, being left to die without veterinary care or being accidentally disposed of as waste. In 2024 alone, there were 146 recorded cases of non-compliance in British laboratories. Although that figure represents a modest but welcome decrease from the previous year, the incidents still involve more than 22,000 animals. Analysis from Animal Free Research UK suggests that at least 542 animals either died or were euthanised as a direct result of those failures.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I think it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I do agree with him, and I will be making that very call. We are in a good place when it comes to the development of alternatives. I therefore welcome the publication of the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy in November.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I of course agree, and I have some information that will illustrate the point and the importance of inspections. In 2024, just 68 establishments were audited across Great Britain. Only 10 of the inspections were unannounced. That represents just 15% of inspections, which is down from 63% of inspections in 2018. The issue is further exacerbated by some elements of those audits being carried out remotely. Nearly 70% of non-compliance incidents were self-reported, which raises a troubling question about how much more is going undetected in the absence of regular, independent spot checks. ASRU’s current regime of regulatory reform includes increasing the number of inspectors by March to 22 full-time equivalents, up from 14.5, but incremental tweaks to oversight will not solve the underlying problem. In 2024 alone, 2.64 million scientific procedures were carried out on animals. That scale of activity cannot be meaningfully overseen through marginal staffing increases. The wider issue is that we continue to allow legally sanctioned animal suffering. For instance, some licences permit deliberate deprivation. Primates’ entire daily food intake can be restricted so that food can be used as a reward for correct task performance during sessions lasting up to six hours. Rats, meanwhile, can go without water for up to 22 hours a day, over a week, to encourage them to consume liquids containing potentially aversive substances. Thousands of procedures still rely on controversial tests such as LD50 toxicity testing and the forced swim test—an outdated model that the Government acknowledge has limited scientific value. Licence summaries reveal the severity of authorised suffering: thousands of animals undergo painful procedures without analgesia because pain relief might interfere with the results. Equally concerning is the failure to uphold the core legal principle at the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 2A is clear that scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods must be used wherever possible, yet an expert report commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research identified a “system-wide failure” to replace animals where alternatives already exist. Home Office summaries show that licences have been granted even when non-animal methods are clearly available. In one example, animals were being used as an intermediary step in heart disease research, despite well-known anatomical differences that limit the relevance of that research to humans. It is time for us to find another way. More than 92% of drugs that succeed in animal tests do not end up being used by patients. That is primarily due to poor efficacy and safety issues that were not predicted by animal testing. We are now at the point where human-specific technologies, using human cells, tissues, artificial intelligence and advanced modelling, offer faster, safer and more relevant results. Pioneering work projects have been taking place for decades, leading to breakthroughs such as mini-hearts that accurately model human cardiac disease without harming animals.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for another valuable intervention. I agree with her. The Government’s strategy contains a range of positive measures, such as increasing funding for human-specific technologies, but we can move faster—more, we have an opportunity to grow the strategy by supporting cutting-edge, world-leading new technologies that are developed right here in the UK. I urge the Government to go further. I urge them to commit to the replacement of all animals in medical research in the UK by 2035. As colleagues have said, that is known as Herbie’s law, after a beagle bred for the laboratory but saved before he was used. Herbie’s law would provide a practical, collaborative pathway to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to phase out animal testing. It would set a clear ambition to replace animal experiments in medical research over the next decade. It would establish expert oversight and support scientists through the transition. It has been carefully drafted by legal experts, is backed by more than 155 of our colleagues here in Parliament and enjoys strong public support. The non-compliance incidents detailed in the ASRU report and the fact that those incidents regularly cause serious animal suffering in this country should shock us and prompt reflection and action. Ultimately, the only way to eliminate those incidents completely is to end animal testing once and for all. We need a research and innovation system that is scientifically excellent, ethically robust and animal-free. I urge the Government to strengthen enforcement, ensure the law is upheld in practice, and deliver a clear, timeframed road map to phase out animal testing.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered non-compliance animal testing incidents in laboratories. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. The uncomfortable backdrop of today’s debate is that animal experimentation results in legally sanctioned animal suffering. That is the fact that we must keep at the front of our minds, especially as we pride ourselves on being a nation of animal lovers. At the 2024 election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. The stark reality, however, is that more than 5 million animals have been approved for use in experiments over the coming years. Behind that large headline figure lie individual cases that are often deeply distressing, such as primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery. That said, the focus of this debate is not on the legality of licences, contentious though they might be, but on what happens when even the limited legal protections are not upheld. In the current system, legally sanctioned animal suffering is compounded by systemic regulatory failure. On 12 December 2025, the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit—ASRU—published its 2024 annual report, which provides a window into the shocking suffering that occurs when our animal testing safeguards fail.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. It will surprise my hon. Friend not at all that I agree. I will come to the wider context and wider solutions, but at this time, although we can look to improve the situation, we must absolutely look to make sure that current regulations are enforced as we speak, and not let slide, because there have been hundreds of animals whose suffering breached the current legal framework and should have been prevented. Some of the most disturbing incidents involve something as basic as access to food and water. In 2024, there were nine separate cases in which animals were not provided with adequate food or hydration, and 24 animals died as a result. In another case, a mother was removed from her cage and killed, leaving seven unweaned pups to starve to death. The report catalogues a litany of serious failures. Animals were reused, in second experiments, without proper authorisation. Others were kept alive past what most people would consider a humane end point. They were left to suffer as tumours grew too large, or body weight fell dangerously low. In one case, misidentification of sex led to regulated procedures being performed on seven pregnant mice. The failures affect a wide range of animals. Primates suffered injuries from faulty equipment, had tails trapped in cage doors or were left without food overnight. A freedom of information request revealed that in one case an incident deemed by ASRU to be a “minor breach” involved a dog being kept alive despite having suffered severe swelling of the parotid salivary glands as a result of the procedures that it had been through, before eventually being euthanised. Given the gravity of the incidents, we should expect robust enforcement. Instead, we see a regulatory regime that is alarmingly weak. In three quarters of non-compliance cases, the only response was “inspector advice”.