MBR Acres Holds an Establishment Licence

ASPA 1986 was overhauled by the 2012 Amendment Regulations to transpose EU Directive 2010/63/EU. The amended Act creates three separate licence regimes — personal (s2A), project (s2B), and establishment (s2C) — each with its own conditions and its own grounds for revocation.

The activities listed in s2C(3) include “the breeding of protected animals” for the purposes set out in s2C(4). 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, principally 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 named conditions. Section 2C(5) gives the Secretary of State power to grant the licence, vary it, or revoke it. Sections 7 to 11 of ASPA cover the standard conditions.

That “Named Person Responsible for Compliance” (the NPRC) is a real human being. Their name is on the licence. They personally face revocation, civil action and, in extreme cases, criminal liability if conditions are breached. The licence is not a faceless corporate shield. There is always a person on the hook.

Sections 8 to 11 require the establishment to keep records, to comply with the Code of Practice for the Care and Accommodation of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, and to make those records available to inspectors.

The Code is not a polite suggestion. The 2026 Code of Practice states explicitly:

Mandatory minimums in the Code include space allowances, social housing, environmental enrichment, exercise, veterinary care, and programme of human contact and socialisation for dogs. Breach of mandatory standards is a breach of licence conditions. Breach of licence conditions is grounds for variation, suspension or revocation under section 13.

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 in the s5(5)(b) test must change. Each new validated alternative narrows what the Secretary of State can lawfully license.

On 27 April 2026, the government’s own “Replacing animals in science” strategy was tabled in Westminster Hall. The strategy concedes that some current animal tests have “limited scientific validity.” That is the government, in writing, conceding the s5(5)(b) test is failing.

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 that MBR was “just a few days away from closure” in 2024 owing to public pressure on its customers. That pressure works precisely because the customer chain is licensed and reviewable.

On 1 July 2026, Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin — the closest US equivalent to MBR — surrenders its breeding licence under a prosecutor’s deal. Licences can be lost.

On 27 April 2026, Ben Obese-Jecty MP told Westminster Hall about written question 125326. He had asked the government about the most recent audit of MBR Acres, conducted in November 2024. The answer recorded:

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.

On the same day Gideon Amos MP described the regulator, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, as funded by the same establishments it regulates — “a structural conflict of interest.” The 2024 ASRU annual report confirms 146 cases of non-compliance across 45 establishments, with 43% relating to inadequate care.

Section 13 of ASPA gives the Secretary of State a direct, unambiguous power to act against a non-compliant licence holder.

The grounds, set out in s13(2), include any of the following:

• The licence holder has been convicted of a relevant offence
• The licence holder has failed to comply with any condition of the licence
• In the case of an establishment licence, that the standards required by the Code of Practice are not being met
• The Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so

The final ground — “considers it 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, MPs from every major party stood in Westminster Hall and said the same thing. Lee Pitcher MP (Labour, Doncaster East): “I believe that the time has come to end animal testing in this country.” Adrian Ramsay MP (Green): “we should set a clear national mission to end animal testing.” Caroline Voaden MP (Liberal Democrat): the Government should commit to ending the use of dogs “specifically” in testing.

The Minister of State, Ian Murray MP, responded by repeating the government’s November 2025 strategy. MPs across parties criticised that strategy on the day for lacking statutory targets, lacking a binding timetable, and lacking independence from the regulated industry. Mary Foy MP put it plainly: 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 Foy cited polling showing seven out of ten people in Britain support ending animal experiments by 2035 (“Herbie’s Law”).

The s2C licence at MBR Acres is granted on a discretion exercised in the public interest. The public interest, as expressed by every speaker on the floor of the House on 27 April 2026 except the minister, is the closure of facilities like MBR Acres.

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