MBR Acres Holds an Establishment Licence

ASPA 1986 was overhauled by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3039), in force from 1 January 2013, to transpose EU Directive 2010/63/EU. The amended Act has three separate licences — personal (s4), project (s5), and establishment (s2C) — each with its own conditions.

The activities listed in s2B(2) include “the breeding of relevant protected animals with a view to— (i) their use in regulated procedures”. Dogs are “relevant protected animals” under Schedule 2. MBR Acres is in the licensed-breeding category. It does not perform regulated procedures itself; it breeds dogs and supplies them to other licence holders — in public reporting, chiefly the contract research organisations Charles River, Labcorp and Sequani.

A s2C licence is not a sign on the gate that says “leave us alone.” It is a permission granted subject to compliance with conditions. Section 10 and Schedule 2C set out the conditions every licence must carry, and section 2C(5) requires the licence to name the people who answer for it, including:

That “Named Person Responsible for Compliance” (the NPRC) is a real human being whose name is on the licence, alongside a named person responsible for the animals’ welfare and care and a named veterinary surgeon (s2C(5)(a) and (b)). The licence is not a faceless corporate shield. The Act requires named people to answer for it.

Schedule 2C requires a section 2C licence to carry conditions that ensure at least the care and accommodation standards in the Code of Practice are met, and requires records to be kept for three years and supplied to the Secretary of State on request.

The Code is not a polite suggestion. The 2026 Code of Practice (published 26 March 2026) states explicitly:

Mandatory standards in the Code include minimum space allowances and pen heights for dogs, limits on single housing, environmental enrichment (including physical exercise), and habituation and training programmes. Because Schedule 2C makes meeting the Code’s care and accommodation standards a licence condition, a breach of those standards is a breach of licence conditions — and that is grounds for a compliance notice, variation, suspension or revocation under section 11.

The 3Rs are not aspirational. They are written into the Act.

That is the test the Home Office must apply every time it grants or renews a project licence at Charles River, Labcorp, Sequani or anywhere else. As New Approach Methodologies (organ-on-chip, AI toxicity prediction, advanced cell culture) become validated for specific endpoints, the lawful answer to the section 5B assessment must change. Each new validated alternative narrows what the Secretary of State can lawfully license.

The government’s own “Replacing animals in science” strategy, published on 11 November 2025 and debated in Westminster Hall on 27 April 2026, says of the forced swim test — for which licences still run until 2028 — that it “has limited scientific validity”. That is the government, in writing, conceding that the replacement principle is not yet doing its job.

MBR Acres is a licensed breeding establishment under section 2C. It does not test on the dogs it breeds. It supplies. The distinction matters because it changes the legal pressure points:

• MBR Acres’ licence stands or falls on welfare: housing, socialisation, the Code of Practice, the named-person responsibility chain.
• The downstream customers’ licences (Charles River, Labcorp, Sequani) stand or falls on the 3Rs test: whether the science can be done another way.
• Stop the supply, and you stop the testing. Stop the testing, and the supply has no purpose. Both ends of the chain are licensed, and both ends are reviewable.

On 27 April 2026, Ben Obese-Jecty MP (the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, in whose constituency MBR Acres sits) told Westminster Hall: “It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign.” Pressure on the supply chain works.

On 24 April 2026, Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin — the closest US equivalent to MBR — agreed under a prosecutor’s deal to surrender its breeding licence. It has since agreed to close for good: every remaining beagle is being released to rescue — an initial 1,500 from spring 2026, a further group in June 2026, and the last of the dogs (including puppies, with transfers running through August 2026) now being moved out too, more than 2,000 dogs in total. The Beagle Freedom Project, Big Dog Ranch Rescue and the Center for a Humane Economy negotiated and carried out the releases. The precedent is set: licences can be lost and buildings can be emptied and shut down for good. Sustained public pressure, court probable-cause findings and cross-party congressional action did this. The same tools work in the UK.

On 27 April 2026, Ben Obese-Jecty MP told Westminster Hall about written question 125326. He had asked the Home Office for the outcome of the announced audit of MBR Acres in November 2025. The answer, given on 15 April 2026, as he quoted it to the House:

The MP’s response on the floor of the House:

That is a sitting Member of Parliament saying, on the record, that the Home Office’s own audit and the lived experience reported by his constituents do not match. The audit is the evidence on which licence conditions are deemed to be met. If the audit is unreliable, the basis for the licence is unreliable.

In the same debate Gideon Amos MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington) told MPs that the Animals in Science Regulation Unit had found, the previous year, “146 confirmed cases of non-compliance across 45 establishments, of which 43% related to inadequate care”, and that the regulator “is funded by the very establishments that it is supposed to regulate. That is a structural conflict of interest that we should not accept”.

Section 11 of ASPA gives the Secretary of State direct powers to act against a licence holder.

The routes, in sections 11 to 13:

• Where the holder appears to be failing to comply with a licence condition or a provision of the Act, a compliance notice (s11(2)) — and revocation if it is not complied with (s11(3))
• Remedial action taken by the Secretary of State to safeguard animal welfare where the holder will not or cannot act (s11(4))
• Suspension, revocation or variation in any case where it “appears … appropriate” (s11(5) and (6))
• Immediate suspension for up to three months where it is “urgently necessary for the welfare of any protected animals” (s13)

The holder has a right to make representations first (s12). But the s11(6) ground — “appropriate” — is the broadest possible discretion. There is no statutory barrier to the Secretary of State acting. The barrier is political. That is the same barrier 27 April 2026 was designed to break down.

On 27 April 2026, Westminster Hall debated e-petition 736578, “End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use”, started by Camp Beagle’s Maria Iriart. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and independent MPs spoke. Lee Pitcher MP (Labour, Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme): “I believe that the time has come to end animal testing in this country” and “we should set a clear national mission to end animal testing”. Adrian Ramsay MP (Green) called for “the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law”. Caroline Voaden MP (Liberal Democrat) asked whether the Government should “commit to ending the use of dogs, specifically, in testing for human use”.

Responding for the government, Ian Murray MP, Minister for Digital Government and Data, defended the November 2025 strategy and its target to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic studies by at least 35% by 2030. He said the government agrees “with the principle of Herbie’s law” but would not put it on a statutory footing. MPs across parties criticised the strategy on the day for lacking statutory targets, a binding timetable and independence from the regulated industry. Mary Kelly Foy MP relayed campaigners’ concern that the strategy “is not yet hard enough on delivery, and lacks clear statutory targets, a firm timetable and proper accountability”.

Public opinion is now decisively against the current settlement. Mary Kelly Foy cited reports that seven out of ten people in Britain support a new law to end animal experiments in medical research by 2035 — the proposal known as Herbie’s Law, which as of October 2026 is a campaign proposal, not a bill before Parliament.

The s2C licence at MBR Acres is granted on a discretion exercised in the public interest. On 27 April 2026, backbench MPs from every party that spoke asked the government to go further and faster in ending animal testing — and several asked for dogs to come first.

Every action below addresses the licence chain at a specific point.