Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will begin with the context in which we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. The life sciences industry is vital to this country. It provides crucial research, particularly in the medical sphere, and plays a central role in pandemic preparedness capabilities. The experience of recent years has demonstrated that that risk cannot be ignored, and we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
The Government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150 billion in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.
Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the Committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.
The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.
Hon. Members may be aware of the Government’s recently published strategy setting out a vision for a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. We are absolutely committed to that goal, but at the same time we will not hesitate to fulfil our duty to protect the citizens of this country and our national health infrastructure and resilience.
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a Government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives. This instrument will aid us in that effort, and I commend it to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I recognise that any changes linked to animal testing will always be an emotive topic. Every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals. The Minister will be well aware of the feelings expressed by many campaigners in advance of today’s debate, and of the strong views on the changes that the Government intend to implement. I welcome the fact that the number of scientific procedures in Great Britain involving living animals decreased between 2023 and 2024, and were at the lowest level since 2001.
Under the last Conservative Government, through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, £90 million was invested in research, and a further £27 million was invested in contracts, through the “CRACK IT” challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, last year, the then Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in the fiscal year 2024-25 in order to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives.
It is important that we acknowledge and take further steps to reduce the use of animals in research—this statutory instrument is inexorably linked to such procedures—but, as the Government noted in their recently published strategy, the use of animals is still needed in certain circumstances. Given the continued protests around those sites, and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector, that undoubtedly poses difficult questions. Finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order is complex. As I am sure the Minister recognises, such decisions should never be taken without serious consideration.
Although there was disagreement at the time—some continue to disagree—I believe that the Public Order Act 2023 has broadly struck a fair balance between those rights. It is therefore essential to ensure that any additions to section 7 of the Act remain proportionate and in line with the original intention of ensuring that key national infrastructure is protected. It is self-evident from this debate that the life sciences sector was not in scope of key national infrastructure provisions under the Act. In fact, I understand that the Minister, who was then in opposition, said in the Bill Committee of that Act that she and her colleagues had problems with the scope of the clause relating to such infrastructure on the basis that much of what was listed was already protected in law under existing police powers, and that there were loopholes and inconsistencies.
Furthermore, although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the Government. Accordingly, will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently?
The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the Minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the Government about the extent to which that could happen.
Ultimately, the ability of businesses and organisations to go about their activities lawfully is essential in our society, and we must find an appropriate balance in protecting public order. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister set out any further detail.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec.
I will start by talking briefly about the underlying issue of animal testing, before making more general comments about restrictions on the right to protest. I think I am right in saying that the only commitment made in the 1997 general election manifesto that was not implemented by the Blair Government was the pledge to establish a royal commission on vivisection, which was scuppered by opposition from the life sciences sector. As I recall, they justified their stance by saying that if there were more transparency around what scientists were doing, they would be at personal risk. As I understand it, one of the reasons we are here today is to consider restrictions on the right to protest about animal testing. I want to make it clear from the outset that I totally condemn any abuse or harassment of individuals working in the sector, but laws are already in place to deal with that. Indeed, some activists, whose behaviour in the past went far beyond the pale, are currently serving very long prison sentences as a result.
I welcome the Government’s publication of the road map for phasing out animal testing, but I am sad that so much time has been wasted since 1997—time with which we could have made progress—and that so many millions of animals have suffered as a result. I am not opposed to all animal testing, but I believe that the vast majority of experiments are unnecessary, ineffective and inhumane, for reasons that I think my hon. Friends will set out. I hope to see the day when we have developed humane alternatives to all animal testing, so that it ends.
To give one example, I have in recent years met scientists at the University of Bristol in a bid to stop them using the forced-swim test. They were looking at the stress that mice experienced when drowning, and whether giving them antidepressants made them feel a bit more zen about the whole thing. The scientists told me that they had done that test over and over again, but had yet to observe anything interesting. That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I am very glad that there is a moratorium on that test now.
In 2015, I attended a meeting in the Commons at which the main speakers were Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, and the eminent zoologist Professor Michael Balls, father of Ed. It was a rather unlikely pairing, but they were joining forces to call for an end to beagle breeding for the purposes of animal experiments. A decade later, the sector involved in testing on beagles is still calling for more time to find replacements. I just do not think that that is acceptable. We need to shine a light on what is happening and question whether such tests are needed. I grew up seeing images of beagles with cigarettes strapped to their mouths to test the effects of smoking. That has rightly been stopped, but I do not think that the public realises that testing on beagles—indeed, testing on dogs—continues.
To what extent will these measures, if implemented, prevent peaceful protest against animal testing? If Will Young—whom I have also heard speaking in Parliament about MBR Acres—was thinking of peacefully handcuffing himself to the fence at MBR Acres once again, would the Minister think he’d “better leave right now”? [Laughter.] Thank you. Somebody was going to make that gag— I thought it might as well be me.
Let me turn to the more general issue. I fiercely defend the right to protest. I am a Bristol MP; we have quite a reputation for it. I went out to Russia under my own steam to observe the end of the Pussy Riot trial, and the powerful speeches from Nadya, Maria and Katya from their cage in the courtroom. However, I accept that there should be limitations to the right to protest. I accept that we cannot have the country grinding to a halt; we must appreciate the impact on people’s lives, and sometimes protesters do not.
A few years ago, a protest by Extinction Rebellion in Bristol blocked the M32, causing a five-mile queue. I remember vividly that there was a woman in a car in that queue who was in labour, trying to get to hospital, and her husband ran to the front of the queue. One of the activists was quoted in the press as saying, “It’s all right, we allowed her through.” I thought it was quite shocking that they should feel entitled to give somebody in labour permission to get to hospital.
I have also defended the Government’s plans to curb the cumulative impact of protests. We have a number of hotels housing asylum seekers in Bristol, and of course people should have the right to express their views—however much I might disagree with some of them—but it is not right that people are targeted week after week, and that the communities around them have to live in fear of possibly violent protests. I accept that; and I have defended that, but I also believe that people have the right to choose to break the law. However, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.
I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes “key national infrastructure”. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres, is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing. The fact that we do not know what tests are being carried out makes it rather more difficult to make such judgments, so I return to my earlier point: transparency about what testing is going on is important—the public have a right to know.
Transparency is also important when it comes to business in this place. We should not seek to place limitations on fundamental democratic rights—in this case, the right to protest—through a small Committee such as this. I therefore ask the Minister to facilitate at the very least a deferred Division on the motion, so that all MPs may vote, but ideally we would have a proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The UK life sciences sector is something that this country should cherish. It is vital to our national wellbeing, from lifesaving research to pandemic preparedness, and it must be protected. But misguided and misdirected efforts to protect this essential industry risk further undermining many of our fundamental democratic freedoms.
Time and again, the Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping and unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. The Public Order Act was one of the most troubling examples of criminalising peaceful dissent and expanding policing powers in ways that we Liberal Democrats consistently opposed. It is deeply worrying to see Labour choosing to follow the same authoritarian path, rather than to revise those damaging restrictions. Rebranding research and manufacturing sites as key national infrastructure risks turning legitimate protest into a criminal offence. Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns, should not be treated as threats to national security.
The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour long before the Conservative Government imposed new laws; these powers are now even stronger. Further restrictions on the democratic right to protest are deeply worrying and illiberal, and it is disappointing to see the new Government pursuing them.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. People often say that delegated legislation Committees are ones that Members loyally troop into between other meetings. They discuss uncontroversial things, and some hon. Members might even check their emails during the sitting—although that is probably not very courteous. There is no Division, and then Members leave.
When I was asked to serve on this Committee, I said yes thinking that it would be another uncontroversial matter, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, and having been contacted an hour or so ago by various campaign organisations and received their briefings, I am very concerned about the change this instrument makes. The oft-used phrase, “The House at its best,” is illustrated today by hon. Members fully engaging on this serious matter.
I echo much of what my hon. Friend said in relation to animal rights and the importance of the democratic right to protest. I am worried by this legislation; I am worried about where it ends. Hon. Members understand the current definition of key national infrastructure, but I think that many outside the Committee would be very surprised were the definition to be extended to pharmaceutical or testing facilities, and when the public find out about this, many will ask, “What next? Where does this stop?”
People are concerned about the authoritarian drift seen under both my own Government and the last. My hon. Friend made an important point: there are existing criminal laws that can deal with criminal behaviour. This move, which could result in peaceful protesters serving prison sentences of 12 months, worries me greatly.
I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats will divide the Committee, but even if there is a Division and the legislation passes, I would welcome—as would the public and hon. Members both on the Committee and outside it—the regulations being put before the House in the new year. There should be a full opportunity to debate and discuss the intended and unintended consequences, and an opportunity for every Member of the House of Commons to vote on the regulations.
I share the concerns that have been raised. Members have been involved in the campaign for Herbie’s law, and plenty of us, myself included, are concerned about animal rights. Regardless of people’s views on animal welfare and rights, a lot of members of the public will be concerned about what the legislation means for civil liberties, what the intended consequences are, and what the unintended effects may be.
As this Committee sits, a number of prisoners are on hunger strike in jails in our country. It feels as though there is an authoritarian drift. We have also seen the proscription of an organisation, which myself and others voted against, because we were concerned about where it would lead in practice, and its implications for civil liberties. We quite rightly speak out against infringements of civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries, and we speak out against draconian laws. Our ability do so, as a country and as a Government, will be severely weakened if we accidentally or otherwise start treading down that path ourselves.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Alec. As you are aware, I am not a member of the Committee and I therefore have no right to vote, but I do have the right to speak, which I am now exercising. My interest in this topic, in parliamentary terms, goes back a very long time. I am not and never have been an animal rights activist; I am an animal welfarist, and in my mind there is a fundamental difference between the two. I do not, and never will, condone any illegal activity, including violent demonstration of any kind—I want to place that firmly on the record.
In my constituency, I have Discovery Park, the former Pfizer establishment at Sandwich. It is an absolutely excellent life sciences establishment, embracing some 100 to 150 small and medium-sized life sciences businesses. The Minister said in her opening remarks that life sciences are vital to the future of this country, and she is absolutely right. I have no desire to impede the work of our life sciences sector—far from it; I would like to enhance it, particularly at Discovery Park in Sandwich.
Some 40 years ago, I was the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. I had the huge privilege at that time of working with Professor Michael Balls, to whom the hon. Member for Bristol East referred. who then led the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Our commitment and desire was to seek—bear in mind that this was 40 years ago—validated alternatives to the use of animals. It has always been my view that animals have no place in a laboratory.
Having said that, we also recognised that we do not solve a problem by moving it from A to B. As some would have done then—indeed, as some would do now—simply shutting down animal experimentation in this country might give people a warm glow, but it would only move the problem from the United Kingdom to other countries, where the research would be carried out under worse conditions. There would be no animal welfare gain. The commitment has to be to validate alternatives, and to move as swiftly as possible to in vitro and other methods of research, rather than in vivo. That is what we should be heading for.
It therefore saddens me that, having made a commitment to animal welfare, this Government should, as their first practical measure of any kind, seek to diminish animal welfare, rather than enhance it, by trying to include in national infrastructure an item that has no place in that legislation at all. By the way, I do not share the view of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, about the 2023 Act; it was a good and necessary piece of legislation. There are arguments to be had about its scope; nevertheless, the fundamental principle was correct. What the Committee is being asked to do this afternoon is not correct.
The road map has been referred to—great, we apparently have a road map, when the engine has not even started. There has been no significant animal welfare gain under this Administration since they took office, and their very first measure is one that seeks to dimmish the welfare of animals. That cannot be right. I therefore urge the Committee to reject this measure this afternoon. This instrument has to have a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is a debate in which I would like to participate and then be able to vote.
In conclusion, I am and always have been wholly wedded to the validation of alternative methods. That is what is needed, not this half-baked measure.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I have to say, I was a tiny bit anxious about speaking on this issue today, because of the risk of being painted a hypocrite or a traitor to my scientific comrades. I am a biomedical scientist and have worked in premises licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I have worked in labs where animal models have been used—primarily fish embryos under five days. None the less, I will speak on this instrument because I am very concerned about a number of issues, and well-versed in the arguments about the necessity of animal models and testing versus investment in alternatives. I am disappointed that, instead of further regulation in this area, we are seeking to punish protesters.
I am probably right in saying that I am one of the few MPs who has ever grown human cells in a flask or replicated DNA in a lab, but it is important that we can bring some of these arguments in, because there is a desire within the science community to move away from animal models. I do not think that anyone wants to use animal models where they are not necessary.
It is undoubtedly true—undeniable—that advances have been made using animal models, but the fact remains that accuracy has always been a concern when using animal models, because to get closer to our biology, one would have to use animals that are no longer used in research, such as rhesus monkeys and other primates. That is why we need alternatives, and investment in alternatives. I did most of my research through in vitro models in Petri dishes, and it was incredibly frustrating that we were not yet at a point where we could have full confidence in those models. That is why we will always need some form of human testing at the end of the process when it comes to pharmacology.
With the advent of AI and the tools that are now available to scientists, we should be at the forefront of finding alternatives if we want to remain at the forefront of biological and life-sciences research in the UK. If we do not, I fear we will be left behind by other countries, which are also trying to speed up research. Animal models are slow; it takes a long time to get to the answer. They are also a messy environment: a scientist does not know whether the thing they are changing is ultimately what is making the difference; there is always the chance that something else is going on. So animal models are not the silver bullet that some people might think they are.
I have a real problem with the definition of “key national infrastructure”, because I think this measure makes a mockery of it. We are not talking about a source of water or electricity, or a main road or transport hub; we are talking about the ability of scientists to go about their daily business. I know of the abuse that scientists have suffered, but we have to balance that against the democratic right of people in our country to say, “Actually, no, this isn’t good, and we should be looking to alternatives.” Calling these premises “national infrastructure” is, quite honestly, hilarious, because a protest at a local site is not going to disrupt the whole country, or even a region. Yes, it might slow things down in the long run, but the reality is that the UK got the vaccine off the ground incredibly quickly in response to the last pandemic. I therefore find it a little distasteful that the main reason given in the briefing notes for this legislation is the protection of vaccine production and research. I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of how we managed during the pandemic.
With the definition being stretched so far, will it cover every single premises with an Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act licence? That would mean a huge number of laboratories and institutions being protected, which would become almost unpoliceable. At a time when our criminal justice system is on its knees, further criminalising protests will only add additional pressure on those stretched services, whether that is the police, the law courts or the prison places that will be taken up as a result of these criminal sanctions.
I know that this is a difficult and controversial topic, but this is too significant a change to make through a statutory instrument or delegated legislation and to debate in this room today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and consider bringing something to the House, or at least allowing us to have a vote on this.
I believe that this measure runs counter to what we want from a democratic society. It is fair enough that we have developed a policy on phasing out animal testing, but that is being completely undermined by the draft regulations. If people no longer feel able to stand up and protest for what they believe in, where will the pressure come from for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to change their models?
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. Members’ speeches have been excellent, but they have skated close to the line of what we are discussing today. May I ask that Members keep within the scope of the legislation? Members will also be aware that the Committee will be called to order at 4 pm. Many questions are being put to the Minister, so I urge Members to bear that in mind if they want answers. I am sure that all those points will now be demonstrated admirably by John McDonnell, a senior Member of Parliament.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will do my best, Sir Alec. I want to relate my remarks to the Minister’s introductory statement on the quite significant extension to the definition of premises as national infrastructure. She said that in doing this the Government are upholding the right to protest. To be frank, all the evidence so far points the other way. I will give an example from my own constituency.
Once something is defined as national infrastructure, it has an almost unlimited reach in its vicinity. In my constituency, we have been campaigning against the third runway for nearly 40 years now, and our tradition is sitting down in the road. Now that Heathrow is defined, in an undefined way, as national infrastructure, even roads that lead some distance from the airport are within the remit of this legislation. Let me put it this way: those wonderful blue-rinse ladies from Harmondsworth village who regularly sit in the road, and who almost certainly vote Conservative, are now at risk of serving 12 months inside as a result of the way in which they protest.
What worries me is that it then becomes a slippery slope. To use the most recent example of protests, people were arrested and interviewed under terrorist powers. Someone then had the brilliant idea that an organisation would be proscribed as terrorist, and we now have six people on hunger strike in Bronzefield prison near me. This is a slippery slope that we should not be going down in any way whatever.
With a change this important, I would at least have expected it not to be made through a simple piece of delegated legislation. I do not think that even the super-affirmative procedure has been engaged, after which there is much wider-ranging consultation. I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the Committee: this warrants a debate on the Floor of the House. It is very rare that this number of Back Benchers turn up, so there is obviously interest across the House in having it properly debated.
I ask the Minister not to put the draft regulations to the House tomorrow. If that happens, I will stick around and shout “Object!”, or whatever. It will be much better, in the interests of the standing of the House, if the Government withdraw them now and came back in the new year for a proper debate. I am sure that many more Members have constituents writing to them in large numbers to express their concerns. This needs more discretion and debate. Otherwise, it will be another step on the slippery slope that undermines the Government’s credentials of upholding the traditional right to protest.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will commence by looking at some of the paperwork accompanying the draft regulations. The fact that the explanatory memorandum says that consultation “took place informally” highlights some of the challenges with this legislation. We know that when the Government have adhered to their manifesto they have done incredibly well, but these measures were not in the manifesto, and then they moved forward with an informal consultation. From what I can see, there does not seem to have been much scope behind that informality. It has meant that the public have not had the opportunity to engage. That is deeply regrettable, and I think that is why the Government are coming unstuck on this measure.
I really urge the Minister to reconsider, not least in order to do things in the right way, trusting the British public to be able to respond to these measures, but also clearly because of the distaste for this. I am really grateful to my constituents who have alerted me to this measure in their correspondence, and to the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the risk.
I disagree with Opposition Members: I do believe that the Public Order Act was a massive overreach of the state, and I have serious concerns about the suppression, as our party did in opposition. I have to question what changed, because clearly something has changed to trigger the Government into believing that that Act should go even further. I have deep concern about that, because at the heart of that legislation was suppressing the right to protest. That has serious consequences for our democracy, for this place and how it operates. We have been able to achieve so much because of protest in Parliament.
I stand for animal welfare protectors—for those people who have deep concern for the welfare of animals. I have certainly campaigned on many such issues; I have led some of the work on the forced swim test, which was referred to earlier. Our time today would be better spent working on how we could perhaps better legislate against that. I note the levels of distress to animals in a pointless exercise, but those licences will continue until 2028. That would have been time better spent.
We must also ask what the urgency is. We know that the average time for a pharmaceutical product to come online is 12 years. We are not talking about something urgent in that respect. It can take up to 30 years for a new pharmacological product to come onstream. The fact that we are talking about a protest over perhaps two or three days will hardly stall the process. The Government are making a mockery by saying that this is an urgent requirement, to the point that they could not even carry out a consultation, as they say in the documentation. It seems slightly dystopian, given that Lord Vallance came forward just last month with a faster phase-out of animal testing programme. For some time now we have been following the replacement, reduction and refinement strategy—the three Rs—to switch from animal-relevant science to ensuring that we use the new technologies available to reduce the use of animals in experimentation. The faster we do that, the better. Again, that is a better use of Government resource.
I also want to raise with the Minister the issue of protesting outside such infrastructure. Supposing the workers within voted for industrial action, and supposing that they chose to strike outside that infrastructure, would that also be unlawful under the Act? Could trade unionists end up with a sentence of perhaps 12 months because they were standing up for their own rights? Of course, the legislation does not state the implications of that. I think it is badly written legislation and should be withdrawn on those grounds as well.
We have existing law to protect against criminal damage, against harassment, against threats and intimidation, against violence, against trespass and against blocking the highway. We also have health and safety legislation. I have to ask the Minister: what is the purpose of this legislation, if we already have that whole framework? Will it be targeted at the peaceful protester who is holding up a sign with a picture of a bunny rabbit on it, saying, “Don’t inject disease into this animal”? If that is where we have got to, it is a really sad day for this Government. Quite frankly, I believe that we are better than that. It is a massive overreach of the state.
I also want to raise my significant concern about the implications for the criminal justice system. I know from informal discussions with the police during the passing of the 2023 Act that they were deeply concerned about the overreach of the state. They prefer fostering a cordial relationship with protesters, because it helps them in their work and in being able to keep order. Having to move into the space of criminality is an overreach. Our prisons, as we hear daily from the Government, are full to the brim. Why are we introducing more legislation to put people behind bars? There seems to be a lack of join-up between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need police officers on our streets as well.
I really do urge the Government to withdraw this measure. If they do so, there will be no need to bring it to the Floor of the House, but we should at least give this House an opportunity to vote these measures down.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec—even today, on my birthday. There is obviously nowhere else I would rather be.
The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy and must be protected even as we balance legitimate security concerns. As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences and a pharmacist, I understand that this statutory instrument is designed to prevent disruptive protest activities and protect key national infrastructure, but the classification of life sciences infrastructure such as animal testing facilities as key national infrastructure could set what some would consider a concerning precedent for protest rights.
What specific safeguards will the Minister implement to prevent overreach with this designation? Will there be any regular parliamentary review of which sciences qualify? What provisions will there be to ensure that peaceful protest remains possible at appropriate distances?
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Sir Alec, although I am not a member of the Committee; it is much appreciated. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
As a new MP and a new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich chaired its predecessor APPG some 40 years ago—I feel that I must make my feelings on this matter known. When we speak about key national infrastructure and life sciences, it is really about the beagles and all the other animals that are tested on in laboratories. I have received many emails from constituents and organisations who are extremely concerned.
By reclassifying animal testing facilities as key national infrastructure and by increasing the powers available to respond to protest activity viewed as disruptive, this proposal will oppress the public’s right to protest about animal welfare. In my view, the argument that that is necessary to protect the UK’s pandemic preparedness and its ability to produce vaccines is not valid. An estimated 92% of drugs fail human clinical trials, despite having passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Our bodies are not the same as animal bodies, so it is not surprising that our drugs are not translating well from one species to another.
Only 14% of the UK public think it acceptable to use dogs in medical research to benefit people, which means that 86% of people think it is wrong. In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing that 1.8 million additional animals, including 97 beagles, were bred for animal research but were never used. We do not know what happened to those animals and there is no trace of the outcome, but I think we can all guess.
As we have heard, the strategy for replacing animals in science came out only last month. I feel that the proposal contradicts its goals by calling animal testing facilities key national infrastructure. Surely the SI hinders our Labour manifesto commitment to supporting scientists to transition from animal-based to human-specific medical research and work. The disappointing defence of animal experimentation runs counter to both public opinion and scientific evidence.
I realise that, sadly, the proposal may go through, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the implications of restricting public scrutiny of animal testing and allowing facilities that use animals in research to receive protection under the auspices of key national infrastructure.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec.
A significant number of my constituents have contacted me recently with their concerns about today’s statutory instrument. They believe—and I support them—that reclassifying animal testing facilities as national infrastructure will allow the use of sweeping injunctions and protest restrictions that are designed for airports, major roads, utilities and energy networks. Those powers were never intended to shield private industries from lawful public dissent.
Animal testing facilities do not meet any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure. As other Members have said, the country would not grind to a halt, nor would national safety or economic stability be threatened, if protests took place outside such sites. Treating them as equivalent to the M25, power stations or airports is clear and unjustified overreach.
There is no legislative gap that the statutory instrument needs to fill. As others have said, existing laws provide robust protection against criminal damage, harassment, threats, trespass and intimidation. Police already have extensive powers to intervene when protests become unsafe or disruptive, including new powers that were introduced to cover persistent or cumulative disruption. This amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 is therefore unnecessary as well as disproportionate.
I am particularly concerned that the measure appears to be targeted at specific facilities, rather than addressing any genuine national risk. Using secondary legislation to quietly expand protest restrictions undermines parliamentary scrutiny and public trust.
I want to pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich about timing. In November, the Government published their long-awaited strategy for phasing out animal testing, which was welcomed as a step towards greater transparency and ethical progress. Restricting protest and public scrutiny of animal testing at the same time sends out a contradictory and deeply concerning message.
The objections are not about condoning unlawful behaviour, but about protecting the long-standing democratic right to peaceful protest, especially on issues about which public information is tightly restricted and ethical concerns are significant. That is why I believe that the whole House should debate and vote on the measure. I hope that the Minister will consider that in her response.
Sarah Jones
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.
I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.
As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.
It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.
Rachael Maskell
It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.
My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.
The second element is protest and rights.
Kerry McCarthy
As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.
Sarah Jones
I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that
“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”
That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.
Irene Campbell
I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Sarah Jones
It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.
Sarah Jones
I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am a fierce defender of animal welfare— I always will be—and I believe that we are not moving quickly enough to phase out animal testing, but does the Minister agree that the pace is not what the draft regulations are principally about? They are quite tightly drafted Home Office regulations on the powers for police to respond to disruptive and illegal activity at our vaccine sites, which affects our pandemic preparedness.
We in Teesside have a Fujifilm facility near Stockton— the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West will know it well—and Teessiders were very proud to produce the vaccine there during the covid pandemic. As we phase out animal testing, we must not hamper that ability—that is what today’s debate is all about.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.
The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.
We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.
Olivia Blake
Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?
Sarah Jones
I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.
Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.
To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere
“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.
That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.
John McDonnell
Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.
Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.
There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.
Rachael Maskell
I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.
As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.
Sarah Jones
That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.
The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.
Matt Vickers
When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?
Sarah Jones
Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.
Question put.