Lords Chamber

Wednesday 4th February 2026

(began 5 hours, 48 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> I'm not sure there was a question in there, but if there was, my Lords, what I'd like to do is take the opportunity to reassure members of your Lordships House. members of your Lordships House. Just as Cc9 guidance for the Charity Commission applies to every charity, regardless of their charitable objectives, the charitable objectives, the electoral law applies to every third party campaigner. The issue question, I think, is making sure that those people that actively participate in our elections are duly registered as third party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

campaigners. In terms of transparency. Is she.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she. Aware of the fundraising regulator's concerns to do with the registration of community, very registration of community, very small community interest companies at companies House who, in terms of avoiding oversight from the Charity Commission, prefer that route of Commission, prefer that route of registration? They evade all accountability in terms of fundraising. And I understand the government is in talks with the fundraising regulator and others to improve that situation. Can she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell the House when that those talks might come to an end? I thank you for your question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for your question. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to update her on the time scale on the development of those talks, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

development of those talks, but I will make sure that the noble Lady gets an answer. Lord Stone. So I.
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:49
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Public Order Act 2023. Interference with use and Operation of Key National Infrastructure Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on the 27th of November, be approved. My Lords, I'll come on to the order in detail in a moment, but I just wish to begin by reminding the House of a Labour Government manifesto commitment, which I think is central to this area of work. The Labour government has planned to champion robust and world leading animal welfare standards.

And on Tuesday, the 11th of November, the government published its Animals in Science Strategy, which is a joint effort led by my noble friend Lord Vallance, supported by my noble friend Lord Baroness Hayman of Ullock and myself. And the policy statement was to phase out animal use in science as announced by a written ministerial statement. This policy has been welcomed by animal welfare groups, by industry and by academia, and we've been very clear that this can only be done at a pace that scientific advances allow, and that in some areas, it will be essential to continue the use of animals in science for specific purposes.

It is critical, therefore, my Lords, this is where I return to the order that although the government's direction of travel is to find alternatives to animals in science to phase out their use, and at the same time to ensure that we get growth potential from this business in the world at large. The protection of those critical resources, whilst we try to reduce and eliminate the use of those resources where possible, is essential. And the purpose of this essay is to better protect facilities that are indeed essential for developing treatments for human and animal diseases.

And that is why, although the government manifesto direction of travel is clear and will, I hope, be met, the life sciences industry remains integral to this country. It is central to health resilience. It is central to pandemic preparedness and it is central to capabilities in this area. And recent experience underscores, in my view, why we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis. This government wants the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery.

The life science sector employs over 350,000 people and generates £150 billion worth of turnover annually. The sector is essential to the development of new treatments and is crucial to the safety testing of new medicines and vaccines. And nobody knows this better than my noble friend Lord Vallance, who dealt with such issues during the response to the Covid 19 outbreak. And the contribution in that instance cannot be overstated. Now what? We're faced with this order, my Lords, is that recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life science sector, threatening that UK sovereign capability to produce vaccines and medicines and therapies, and has disrupted supply chains that are, in my view, indispensable to research and national health protection.

As a result of this disruption, work that is of significant benefit to society is, I'm afraid, my Lords, placed at risk. And it's therefore incumbent on the government of the day to act without delay. So that brings me directly to the subject of our debate today. The legislation before the House will address the issue I've outlined by amending section seven of the Public Order Act, 2003 to add the life science sector to the list of key national infrastructure. This will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure, or interfere with its use or operation.

Anyone convicted of this offence will, first of all, have obviously been arrested by the police, potentially warned by the police. The CPS will have gone through those charges, but anybody who faces ultimately that conviction will face a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment, a fine or both. And in turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to, in my view, respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining that 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 legally by Parliament under the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986.

And this will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research and academic laboratories, carry out research involving animals. Now it is clear, my Lords, that when Parliament introduced the Public Order Act 2003, they explicitly deemed it necessary to build in the ability for new elements to be added to section seven. The original clause covered vital infrastructure being targeted by overtly disruptive protests, and precisely the same situation is now being faced by the life science sector.

Today, Parliament deliberately framed the definitions in the act widely and explicitly. My Lords allowed Parliament to add to the list of key national infrastructure should the need arise. That need today has arisen. My Lords, can I, if I may, directly address the fatal motion that has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett? First of all, I disagree with the stance and content of the motion, but I think it's a duty of myself to explain why. So let's take the components in turn, if I may.

The Baroness has argued that the regulations constitute legislative overreach in that they extend the definition of key national infrastructure beyond its appropriate meaning. I would say to her this I anticipate I will listen to her comments, but I think it's important we put these on the record now. Disruption to the life science sector poses significant and imminent risk to this country's ability to act in a medical crisis and, if not addressed, could seriously undermine the UK's readiness for the next pandemic.

This is entirely in keeping with the existing definition of key national infrastructure, and given the risk that is posed to the country, in my view, comfortably meets the government's high threshold for this protection. The key national infrastructure sections that we have already include road transport, rail infrastructure, air transport infrastructure, harbours, downstream oil infrastructure, gas infrastructure, onshore oil and gas, onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing infrastructure. My Lords, I would suggest that support for activity in a medical crisis meets that criteria.

Secondly, the noble Ladies argues in her amendment that the proposal from myself and the government today further restricts the democratic right to peaceful protest. Let me be clear to this House today, the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democratic society. People should have the right to protest. If they wish to protest, they should have that right. I have undertaken protests myself. This is not to limit protests. This measure does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protests.

But what it does, there is a balance, my Lords, to be struck and the right to protest does not extend to causing serious disruption or imperilling that key national infrastructure. And finally, my Lords, the noble Lady's motion has an assertion that sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken. I referred in my opening remarks, and I put those opening remarks at the top of my speech, because I'm quite proud of the fact that my noble friend and the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman of Ullock and myself have brought forward a manifesto commitment in the first year of this Labour government to publish a strategy to replace animals in science, which sets out how we will create a revolutionary research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods.

And the key caveat wherever possible. And that technology that, my noble friend, is very much on top of will develop. And we hope to replace animals in science as we can, and to phase that out in line with our manifesto commitment, my noble friend has allocated through the Office of Life Sciences £75 million in funding, alongside publication of the strategy to help ensure that we can develop those alternatives which will support laboratories in moving away from animal testing and adopting safe, proven alternatives.

Nobody in this country of animal lovers wants to see suffering or unnecessary use, and the government's plan will support that work to end animal testing wherever possible, and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is effective and safe to do so. And may I say, my Lords, in doing so, contribute to the export potential for this country, the growth agenda for this country and the serious scientific research that this country can utilise to make a difference in the world at large.

However, that is currently a legal commitment that we can undertake that type of research. It is backed up by legal heavy regulation. Until that is achieved, the immediate and critical issue remains that the sector is being targeted by protesters who oppose those current clinical research methods. Disruption to the industry risks weakening the country's ability to act in a medical crisis, and if protest activity continues to interfere with essential research, it will seriously undermine the UK's readiness for the next pandemic.

And that is why the government takes today, my Lords, the proportionate step to reduce supply chain interference to protect the sector's ability to operate in the UK, to ultimately support the UK's pandemic preparedness and national health resilience, and to allow this sector to operate whilst our strategy is put in place. So to conclude, my Lords, I will state again this order does not stop anybody peacefully, lawfully protesting. That is a cornerstone of our democracy. This government respects and reveres that right and we will always defend it.

But equally, my Lords, our approach must be appropriately balanced. And that means in this context, we must take into account the duty upon us to protect what is, in our opinion, key national infrastructure, where disruption threatens medical progress and places jeopardy of our national capability to prepare for and respond to public health emergency. This government must act, and the only reasonable response is the one that we are taking today. And my Lords, there can be no denying that innovation, crisis response and life saving care are worthy and vital pursuits.

So is the right to protest. But as a government, it is our responsibility to ensure that both those pursuits can continue unimpeded. I look forward to hearing the noble Lady's motion, but I believe the case the government has made is both fair and proportionate, and I commend the motion to the House.
16:01
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. Bennett of Manor Castle. >> Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for both outlining the Statutory Instrument and the Statutory Instrument and explaining my motion to decline to approve it. I'm going to structure my speech in an unconventional manner, starting with the points that I know the fewest people in this chamber will agree with. Moving backwards through the order in the motion, to the point that I believe the most people in this chamber might be persuaded to agree with, particularly the benches to my right, where I will finish are points not about animal testing or the rights to protest, but about the basic constitutional understanding that Statutory Instruments are a way in which the law can be illegitimately extended well beyond the original intentions manifested when democratically debated, pored over, scrutinised both in your Lordships House and in the other place.

This Statutory Instrument is a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach. But I'll start with animal testing. The phasing out of which is, as the motion says, not going nearly fast enough under the replacing animals in science strategy. Why do I argue this is to slow for a morality and for efficacy? There's public revulsion, yes, which results in widespread peaceful protest about the treatment of more than 2.5 million animals a year used in the cause of medical research here.

More than that, there is a recognition of the inadequacy of animal testing, the so-called valley of death that sees drugs apparently showing promise in animals fail to work in humans. Animal Free Research UK reports that that's the case for more than 92% of drugs, and that failure makes up 75% of the cost of drug development. As an entire edition of the journal Frontiers in Immunology, published in 2024, points out, there's 90 million years of evolution between humans and rodents, but there are alternatives.

And I'm going to quote our Minister, Lord Vallance of Balham, from November. Now, new advances in technology, particularly AI and genomics, but also organoid and 3D cell systems, finally allow us to see a path to changing our reliance on animals in science. But this will be an active discouragement to the commercial companies to push on in this direction the direction which the government says it wants to head and for which public pressure democratic forces are clearly important. Now, my second argument is to quote the motion that the sea reflects a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest.

If you look at the debate on the sea and the other place, that was the key concern of many of the 26 Labour MPs who voted against it, as did the Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, among the 110. No tally among the Labour opponents were Stella Creasy and Kerry McCarthy, former shadow Minister of State for DEFRA and former Minister for climate, as Paul Labour MP Neil Duncan Jordan said this proposal treats private, often American owned companies the same as airports, motorways and utilities.

It shields private profits from fair criticism and puts them above our right to protest. That is not right. That's what the Honourable Duncan Jordan said in the other place. Protest is part of our political system, a crucial part in delivering democracy. Now, the noble Lord, the Minister, suggested there had been recent developments in protest that demanded this sea be brought in. Well, my Lords, I can go back to the 19th century, when the UK was a leader, both in protests from the anti-vivisection movement and with the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 that was driven by that protest movement.

Now, I've circulated two briefings to all noble Lords, one of those representing 21 signatories, among them protect the wild Camp Eagle. Medicine without Cruelty and the network for Police Monitoring, known as Net Poll, says that 30,000 emails have been sent to noble Lords and I apologise to the many who've written to me personally that I just don't have the capacity to respond individually. That, together with the other briefing written by Naturewatch Foundation and supported by 26 other signatories, including cruelty Free International Wildlife and Countryside Link, Lush Cosmetics and the Animal Law Foundation, both indicate that this C represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of public order powers, which are already some of the most far reaching protest related restrictions in recent UK law, and extending them to abroad and very loosely defined sector.

And when it comes to animal testing, the government has failed to demonstrate why existing laws covering harassment, obstruction, criminal damage and public order are not already sufficient. But now I turn to what I believe is my point of broadest appeal and an appeal of considerable constitutional significance. I thank our staff member, Jennifer Scotney, for going right through all of the debates in the original act in the Commons, when the honourable Kit Malthouse described the bill at Committee stage.

He said the offence will cover major roads, railways, airports, harbours and downstream oil and gas infrastructure. The explanatory notes on the bill list transport, energy and ads, newspaper printing. Infrastructure. Parliament did not scrutinise life sciences as key national infrastructure. Its later inclusion relies solely on delegated powers and was not the original legislative intent. Key and I were identified as specific identifiable physical systems whose operation underpins daily life. Life Sciences, by contrast, is a broad sector, largely operating on private land, consisting of thousands of sites of varying importance.

To quote Kit Malthouse again, minor infrastructure such as undesignated roads and small scale power stations will be out of scope if minor or diffuse infrastructure was deliberately excluded. A whole commercial research sector cannot logically fit within the definition. The National Police Chiefs Council testified that it would have concern about an explicit duty being placed on policing to deal with an activity on private land. Now emergency services, health and food services were explicitly rejected as not being suitable for being part of this bill, with Ministers saying they were not in scope.

Sarah Jones, MP in the Commons committee, proposed adding emergency services. This was rejected by the Minister in response to a proposal to adding farms and food production. The response in the Commons was this would, quote, significantly increase the scope of the bill in our own House. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, then the conservative government Minister, said we do not believe it is necessary to add to the list at present. Referring to other sectors, if ambulances, hospitals and food supply were excluded for being too expensive to be included in this bill, then Life Sciences represents a clear shift beyond Parliament's stated limits.

For the bill. Ministers justified the secondary legislation power on the basis that new forms of infrastructure might emerge, or novel protest tactics might target previously unforeseen sites. Protested animal testing and life science facilities, however, is long established. Going back into the 19th century, as I said, well known and was explicitly referenced during the passage of the bill. Martha Spurrier of Libya at the Liberty at the Commons Committee stage, said if someone locks themselves to an animal testing centre, the police have to work out at what point the person's right to protest becomes an infringement of other rights.

Parliament was already aware of protests at animal testing facilities, and discussed them as part of the existing protest landscape, managed under existing regulations and human rights law, not as a justification for redefining infrastructure. Now I come to the broader position in which we're debating this. I, the Public at Law Act website says, and I quote, for as long as delegated legislation has existed, there have been concerns about the way in which it is used. Sometimes the government leaves difficult or controversial matters of policy to Statutory Instruments, so that the government can avoid the difficulties of having to pass a law.

My Lords, what I posit here is that's what's happening here and now. I've been in your Lordships House for more than six years, so I've heard many debates along the lines of a report from 2014 from the Hansard Society titled The Devil is in the detail Parliament and Delegated Legislation. That report says, and this really is the key part of my argument. The House of Lords should make greater, albeit judicious, use of its powers of veto when referring to Sis. I put to the House, and particularly to the conservative benches, who I know in general are extremely reluctant to vote for fatal motions, that this would be a judicious, indeed a critically important use of their vote on this occasion, a vote for something we often hear championed from those ventures for free speech.

I make only a statement of the obvious when I say that politics is now in a great state of flux, the future highly uncertain. The principle of far extending the original intentions of a bill which could be stopped through a mechanism that His Majesty's loyal opposition has in its hands but declines to use, could in the future be a far greater threat to the nation's liberty than even what we have before us today. Does Parliament make the law, or has the executive morphed into a monstrous Henry the Eighth hologram, saying the law means whatever I say it means in this age particularly.

That is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very dangerous precedent to set. I beg to move. Hear, hear! The original order. The original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original order. The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on 27th laid before the House on 27th November 2025 be approved. Since when? An amendment has been moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle to leave out all the words after that and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
16:13
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
I. >> With the noble Lady Baroness Bennett about just stop oil blocking motorways, and I don't blocking motorways, and I don't agree with her now about animal testing, which I think has to be carefully controlled but is still essential. But I do come to the same conclusion as she does for the constitutional reason that she gave as the last of her indictments. I strongly agree with the government about the importance of the life sciences sector. I was chairman of the Imperial College.

I know a bit about it. I the point where I disagree with the government and strongly agree with the Baroness is whether a research laboratory can properly be designated as key national infrastructure under the 2023 act. Section seven of the act makes it an offence to interfere with the, quote, use of or operation of key national infrastructure, and it defines the key national infrastructure rather precisely. The Minister read out the definition eight categories infrastructure, seven of them to do with transport, eight, rather oddly, is the pricing of of is the production of newspapers.

But presumably the the connection is communication. Section 77 of the act permits the Secretary of State to add further infrastructure. Hence this s I. During all our debates, no one ever mentioned laboratories. When we were passing this act, animal welfare didn't come up. We thought we were dealing with oil, gas, rail, road, air because that's what the Minister said and that's what the bill said. If we were thinking of what extra

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might be. I'm grateful to the Lord giving away. Does he not accept that away. Does he not accept that animal research goes on well beyond laboratories? It goes on in fields. It goes on in many other examples, examples of where proper research is being done. And I think he is being done. And I think he underestimates the issue when he considers laboratories far rather than that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than that. But I think I'll stick to my line of argument, if I may. The I don't think we discussed laboratories. Hansard shows that we didn't discuss laboratories. The. I think it's important to remember that the demonstrator outside the factory laboratory is already covered by the act because he's obstructing the road. He's probably covered already by the Public Order Act 1986, but he's certainly Act 1986, but he's certainly covered by the 2003 act.

Road transport infrastructure is right at the top of the list of infrastructure called key national infrastructure. This Statutory Instrument adds the laboratory or the factory itself, not access to it, deems it infrastructure, deems it national infrastructure and deems it key to the nation. That's quite a stretch. And if the pharmaceutical industry is key, national infrastructure, what about food production or distribution? Well, what about the NHS or what about radio and television transmitters? All three cases seem more plausible than a life sciences factory, a laboratory.

I agree with the noble Lady that the Statutory Instrument would set a dangerous precedent. It's in the spirit of Igor Judge, who we miss so much that I register my unease. Unlike Igor, I can't add an apposite reference to Thomas Cromwell. But he always warned that the temptation for the executive is always to push the legislative boundaries. I worked in the executive. I know he's right. I think this instrument pushes the boundaries too far, and that we should push back.
16:18
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, I declare an interest as having been in this House even a little longer than the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. And I've had great respect for many of the things she said. And we've worked together on other bills. But I have to say that over 50 years I've continued to do animal research, and I've held a licence under the Home Office and of course, my laboratory, where I still have some work going on, is still using animals and it will have to continue if it's to continue the research it's doing.

And I think that is something that we have to consider in this. And I think it's quite important actually, that animal research is seen as actually a very respectable endeavour and properly policed, which actually, in fact is done, I think, exceptionally well on the whole by the Home Office. And I'm very grateful for the noble Lords Minister who has a thought, given a very good speech, and explaining really how this has been done in this House, and how the government needs to try to reduce the number of animals in research, as we are doing, and with which I totally agree.

And I, with great respect to the noble Lord Lord Kerr, I have to say that I would have some problem with his comment because I think his comment would not protect me. You know, I have had in the years I've been doing research until quite recently, repeated death threats. I've had the Special branch around my house with my 93 year old 94 year old mother hiding in the kitchen because we thought there was a bomb on the doorstep. We've had a whole range of issues, and my friends have had fires actually in their house.

My friend, my friends have had actual fires in their house because they've worked in the same laboratories. I think we have to understand that this is actually a very real threat to research. And of course, some people also doing research give it up because they actually get so concerned about not necessarily the value of the research they're doing, but the risk that they run with reputation and with the work that they're doing. And it's understanding. And I think we need to actually make it much clearer why it's necessary.

And I need to just suggest to the noble Lady with, with, with respect that she's not entirely correct with the reason she gives for giving it up. First of all, there are numerous examples. Might I just suggest to somebody, some of you in the chamber, I've counted that in the House of Lords and the House of Commons over my time there must be at least over 100 families, at least, who have actually benefited from the technique of in vitro fertilisation that was only made possible by, in fact, experimenting on animals to make sure that we were not producing embryos in the human, which would be abnormal or distorted or deformed, deformed or die after birth or die later on.

That's one example. Also, equally in Perinatology has been clear evidence that animal research was definitely necessary for understanding the breathing, the breathing of the of an animal, to make sure how we can actually prevent the sort of damage to to infants. And indeed, I did some of that research in a very small way in mice years ago with a man called Jonathan Wigglesworth, who was a very famous, much more famous than I was, much better scientist than I was. I mean, the who undertook this work.

There are numerous examples and the idea that we can use tissues or embryos is really, I think, very far from the mark, because of course, one of the issues is that in culture, in any kind of artificial situation, which is not an intact animal, there are changes to the cells which we can't control. And that is something which is a really important issue in science. And I think we have to understand that that really is a critical question. It's true too. Of course, in DNA technology, there's still need to have sometimes the testing of that.

Think of the number of people in this House who have actually had treatments for cancer, which used animal research. Of course it needs to be reduced, but in fact, understanding that those cells which are we are modifying and then putting back into a into a man or a woman still needs extreme validation. And to some extent, I have to also say to the noble Lady with respect that she's being a little bit inconsistent because she and I actually worked on a bill called the preceding breeding bill some three years ago, when we looked at the risks of modifying animals and modifying plants, and there was a huge amount of misinformation about that, but eventually it did go through.

I never saw the noble Lady actually make the points that she made about animal research now, but actually, certainly, I think we have to understand that the issue that she's now talking about, the moral issues of animal research certainly did not come up in that. It was much more about making sure that if we did produce, produce animals with this way, we would not produce abnormal animals, which in fact would be either poisonous or dangerous or misformed in some sort of way.

And I think that is something that we have to consider. So this is certainly an issue where she's been, in a sense, on the other side. And this bill went into it, went into Third Reading and then got royal assent without actually anybody really complaining that it went through. If she has complained about it, I certainly have heard about it. And of course it is still something which is now being considered and should be, I think, considered to be implemented at this very, very moment.

The government is considering that. And that, of course, would be that that would also affect, of course, some of the issues of animal breeding. If we do try to modify and improve animal farming and so on in the way that's been proposed. It's a bill I found that's difficult, but it certainly does not suggest we should not use animals carefully and with great moral care. So I have to say to her that I feel that her motion is really, unquestionably wrong, in my view, and I will certainly want to vote against it.
16:24
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Expresses lots of practical and ethical things that we might agree ethical things that we might agree with, but it doesn't change the fact that this Statutory Instrument is an outrageous abuse of secondary legislation powers. And as the Minister knows, a fatal motion in this House almost never succeeds. But if a Statutory Instrument deserves a fatal motion, this is it. And I congratulate the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett for bringing it forward. And if the government had any conscience, it could even at this stage acknowledge the abuse and withdraw it.

When the Public Order Act was debated and agreed in both houses. The meaning of major infrastructure was, as both noble Lords Baroness Bennett and noble Lord Lord Kerr have said, and my noble friend Lord Beith, who is in his place, spotted the danger at that time, and at Second Reading of that act he said, and I quote, I question the provision of clause 77, which allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of key national infrastructure by Statutory Instrument.

This could create an enormously wide scope for the powers in the bill. End of quote. My Lords, that's exactly what has happened. How right he was to be so concerned. And indeed, at Committee stage, Baroness Chakrabarti raised the same concerns with her amendment 38. But now under a different government. Those fears have been exactly realised. So can the Minister say how wide the attachment cast the net? He talked of some 350,000 employees. That really suggests an awful lot of sites and facilities.

So this Statutory Instrument, I maintain, is the clearest abuse of legislative powers that I can remember in my 27 years here. If Parliament passed legislation to quell or curtail protests on major roads and railways, that at least is within the legislation. But if this government is now planning to extend this so extensively, well, that does mean that pretty much everything can become national infrastructure. So. This is really, in my view, another effort by Labour to quell, chill and kill protest.

Noble Minister will know well that we have the Crime and Policing Bill in Committee stage in your Lordships House, and that too contains clauses that widen the scope of criminalisation of protest considerably. The noble Lord Hanson of Flint said that that bill, the provisions of that bill, will be reviewed by the Lord Macdonald of River Glaven in the review of the government's commissioned. However, my noble friend Lord marks, in committee on the bill, queried the fact that actually what will happen is we will have put all that quelling of protest into statute and then there will be the review by Lord MacDonald.

Well, we know, my Lords, that actually by that time it will be too late to change it because it will all be there. And the review really won't count for much Lord Marks fears, as I do, that once these draconian laws are on the statute books, then they'll stay there. So if the government are serious about seeing what the report recommends, they would not be rushing this Statutory Instrument through in advance of the report. When this Statutory Instrument was debated in committee.

In the other place. The noble Lord, the Minister's colleagues, were very sceptical about it. And Kerry McCarthy, who Baroness Bennett already mentioned, said I do not accept, however, that what we're 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, and I think there can. Gary McCarthy has it, and indeed several.

There were several Labour members who were very doubtful about this. John Arnold said, and I quote, I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the committee. It warrants a debate on the floor of the House. It's very rare that a number of backbenchers turn up. So there's obviously interest across the House to have it properly debated. But it wasn't properly debated, my Lords. That's what we have to do in this House and make sure that we actually do return this for further consideration.

So for Liberal Democrats, this Statutory Instrument is primarily an absolute affront to the parliamentary process and a further dangerous move in undermining a right to protest. But of course, it is almost also about animals and animal testing. Labour has been clear in its commitment to end animal testing and on improving animal welfare through various measures. Those are positive moves that they're proposing, but they really are undermined by this Statutory Instrument. Some of the accounts of what goes on in, I think, the site that provoked this Statutory Instrument are very harrowing.

And there's no doubt that we should know more about that. Liberal Democrats support repealing section 24 of the 1986 Animal Scientific Procedures Act to improve public access to information. We need transparency in order to debate properly what's being done in the public interest and what is unnecessary, cruel and inhumane. However, in the end, whether your Lordships vote for this fatal motion or not depends on whether your Lordships feel it matters that the government takes us for fools, or whether legislation passed in your Lordships House should say what it means.
16:31
Lord Willetts Portrait Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
Yes, my Lord, my Lord. referred in her powerful speech to what she called the revulsion against the use of animals in against the use of animals in medical experiments. That is why there has been a long term strategy reinforced by this government, but also absolutely also pursued by previous governments of the so-called three R's the reduction, the replacement and the refinement of the use of animals in medical experiments. That is the right thing to do. And I am optimistic that new technologies will make it possible to make much more progress in that direction.

However, meanwhile, we have to engage with the world as it is, and the most important feature of the world as it is, which has not yet been referred to and was not referred to by the noble Baroness Bennett, is international standards on pharmaceuticals and drugs, many of which require that before a drug is tested on a human, it should first have been tested on a rodent and a non-rodent. That is the legal regulatory environment within which all life science companies currently operate.

It means that the production, the export, the import of a large amount of medical treatments, pharmaceuticals has to comply with that international agreement to which the UK has subscribed. Most countries subscribe, and I did not hear the Green Party saying that they thought we should withdraw from that international agreement. If animals, therefore both rodents and non-rodents are to be used before a drug is tested on a human, we need a supply of those rodents and non-rodents.

I saw as science Minister the extraordinary range of activities from protesters going way beyond the normal human right to protest, which of course we must support a range of activities designed to make it impossible for the UK life sciences industry to comply with that international regulation to which we were all committed, and compliance with that regulation is necessary for our wider access to drugs and our wider capacity to innovate and produce new drugs. There has been discussion of the of national infrastructure, as if somehow we're talking about provisions that would immediately be applied to every pharmacist or every life science lab.

What is actually shocking when you look at it close up, is how we are dependent on a very narrow range. An extraordinarily small number of facilities to enable us to comply with those international requirements. If we were to lose those, then it wouldn't be a matter of protests outside every pharmacy. If we were to lose a a very small number of key facilities, our capacity to respond to medical emergencies, to deliver up to date medicines to people through the NHS would be much diminished.

So I am in no doubt I understand the Baroness Shah challenge, but I am in no doubt that the facilities that enable us to comply with those key regulations applying to pharmaceuticals are absolutely part of key national infrastructure. And surely the lesson of Covid is how important that capacity is. So of course, it's right for us in this House to consider whether the proposal is within the terms of the provisions for national infrastructure. But having observed at close hand what we depend on for drugs and services that we take for granted, I am no in no doubt that it is.
16:36
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yes. My Lords. spanner a little bit, which is to say that I'm completely torn between two sides. So I thought it might be helpful to explain the dilemma. First of all, I'd like to give real credit to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for the work that he's done scientifically and the need to use animals in experiments, which he explained as partly moved to speak because I was a great admirer of and friend of professor neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who died a few years ago, and I just wanted to note that he had had to heroically stand his ground against intimidation, harassment, threats of violence and actually terror.

And that was deployed not just against him, but by animal rights activists. And he, alongside less well known scientists. But medical researchers, staff both in academia and in, in in private companies, we're confronted by abuse accused, by the way, completely inappropriately of conducting a Holocaust, completely inappropriate use of the term holocaust of animals and so on. Worse than the Nazis. And and and I witnessed some of that. Now, this was long before, in fact, organisations like Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action arrived on the scene.

To who blur the line between the democratic right to protest and the more anti-democratic bullying of the public and institutions to do as activists demand. And I think that that presents us genuinely with a dilemma, because I support the right to protest. But I sometimes worry that the right to protest is used to justify people who are not interested in protesting, but are interested in effecting the stoppage of a particular activity through physically and through bullying people. But having said all of that, I do want to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, why this sector has only come into scope now and why not before? I just genuinely don't understand why is it, has it been introduced as a Statutory Instrument with no possibility of opposition, apart from via a vital motion? To be honest, and I cannot see why? I mean, I, I was one of those people who was very worried about the public Order Act and the and the those the powers handed over to the Secretary of State, precisely because I was worried that the Secretary of State could redefine what national infrastructure projects were.

And here we have it. And I think that's been very well explained. And I also feel rather squeamish about our emphasis on life sciences as an industry and national infrastructure, without it being defended as scientific research for its own sake. I mean, I wish I'd had so much defence of the importance of animal research when those scientists were being attacked by politicians on all sides, because for me, I think of animal research in terms of epilepsy, drugs, Parkinson's disease, anti-cancer drugs and therapies like Herceptin and tamoxifen.

And I just find it a little bit disappointing that we only kind of stand up to defend it when it's an industry that makes money. I just think there's more to scientific research and animal research than that, surely. However, I was also disappointed by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, but particularly the briefings actually. And goodness knows, I received many of those emails who on the one hand I agree right to protest constitutional overreach as I've as I've just said.

And actually, I thought the noble Lord Lord Kerr made some really excellent points. Not often we agree, but made some absolutely excellent points as to why this is slightly nerve wracking. But then I was in all of these emails I received, and in fact we've had it reproduced here by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. We end up getting a lecture about the dangers of animal research, and I end up feeling that what I'm being asked to vote on is whether I think animal research is a valid scientific method or, you know, whether it's important for medical science.

I understand replace, I understand the three R's. I understand it's not where we're going, but I think it is so important to emphasise that this animal research is going to carry on for some time. We can't be dishonest about that. And therefore, if I'm in a situation where I'm being asked to vote for this fatal motion, and that means that it's been turned into a way of demonising those researchers who work with animals, then I will not vote for it, you know, or I'll abstain.

So it is a serious question both to the noble Lord, the Minister. Why now? Why didn't you say it before? Why didn't anybody say it before? And to the noble Lady as to whether I can risk siding with people who are going to give a lecture and hectoring demonisation of perfectly legitimate, in my view, heroic scientists who do animal research because it's necessary for humanity, whatever about the economy.
16:41
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords Library my Lords. parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare, a past president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and more pertinent to Surgeons, and more pertinent to this debate, a former named veterinarian. More than 30 years ago, I was stressed to a university animal unit. Now, my Lords, I realised that this issue is contentious and emotive and I understand people's concerns. But with respect, this is not the place of this motion to debate the provision and use of animals in research.

But it is about balancing free speech and the right to protest with the lawful pursuit of highly regulated legal activities of great benefit to humans and animals. So I speak in support of these regulations and to oppose the motion. The motion speaks of legislative overreach and suggests it extends critical national infrastructure beyond its meaning, which I would challenge. My Lords, the Public Order Act allows the Secretary of State to make that was agreed by Parliament.

In that act, my Lords, our biosecurity is more vulnerable than ever. We are threatened by potential epidemic or pandemic outbreaks of infectious disease in either humans or animals. And I would just point out that foot and mouth disease, for example, is on the national risk Register. Whether a disease outbreak occurs spontaneously or by bioterrorism. And let us not forget that risk. It presents a huge threat to our food security, to our animal health, our human health and the economy.

I'm satisfied indeed. I'm heartened to see that life science establishments, which help us detect, manage or prevent those very serious events I've mentioned, are regarded as critical national infrastructure. As for the motion's associated assertion of lack of justification, and that is a further restriction, and that it is a further restriction of the right to peaceful protest. This does not change or extend any sanctions or restrictions already in the Public Order Act of 2023. It simply adds another type of infrastructure.

I also note that the police believe the current powers under the Public Order Act of 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 are insufficient in this case. I cannot see that peaceful progress protest is in any way prevented, but I am aware that protest actions in several sites have included things like spike devices hurled into facilities to damage vehicles and puncture tyres, spray painting the homes of animal care staff, other harassments, personal threats and criminal damage, often by masked individuals which go way beyond peaceful protest and are clearly designed to close down facilities.

As someone who has known first hand the exemplary skill and care with which animal technicians treat the animals they look after in research establishments, I am appalled that staff are treated by some demonstrators so nastily that they are frightened to go to work in the UK. Labs which might use animals, whether for life science, medical or veterinary research, and the facilities which support those labs, are highly regulated and carry out legal activities of incredible value to human and animal health and welfare.

The motion, My Lords, also states that sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken. Well, my Lords, I contest that assertion. As we've heard from previous laws, great strides have been taken in technologies like in vitro culture, organoid, organoid creation, genomic, proteomic and metabolomic and other molecular techniques in general to obviate the animal use. It is a fact as well. Apart from reasonable welfare and ethical objections, that it is far more expensive to use animals if non-animal use solutions are possible, and that is a great disincentive.

I would suggest to use animals. Lastly, my Lords, I commend His Majesty's Government for their recently announced policy paper, Replacing Animals in Science A strategy to Support the development, validation and Uptake of Alternative Methods, which is a quite detailed plan to expedite the reduction of animals in research which I fully support. So finally, my Lords, I note that the two committees of this House which scrutinise secondary legislation, had no criticism of this. See. And in that in the other place, these government regulations were twice supported by large majorities.

So, my Lords, in conclusion, while I absolutely support all measures to reduce animal usage, and there is more that can be done, I support these regulations and cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the motion. My Lords. As a member of the Joint

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that this was raised, and the that this was raised, and the chairman, Sir Bernard Jenkin, told us that actually it wasn't for us us that actually it wasn't for us to discuss whether or not the Statutory Instrument was correct. We the job of that committee is if the instrument is defective, duplicative, but not the general purpose of it. So I take the that to be the case.
16:48
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Trying to respond. >> Trying to respond. >> My Lords, I'm pleased to follow my noble. >> Friend if I am allowed to refer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend if I am allowed to refer. In that way. And I rise to support the regulations that have been moved by my noble friend, the been moved by my noble friend, the Minister. I would also like, if I may, to thank Baroness Bennett of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manor Castle for having tabled this motion, because it. Does enable the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does enable the House to consider matters we don't often have the chance to hear about or discuss, and I think they are very discuss, and I think they are very important. And of course, it does raise very difficult and sensitive issues because as the House knows only too well, it refers in great part to the use of animals in research. Now, I doubt there is a research. Now, I doubt there is a single member in this House who positively wants to see animal testing and animal research if it can be avoided and the government is rightly committed to ending it.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord Lord Willetts commend the government for its current commitment to phase out this research, and I, in turn, commend the noble Lord Lord Willetts, when he was in government for the same trajectory and support that he has given, and reference has been made to the document published last year, and the three R's and so on. But, my Lords, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research, and it helps ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective.

My noble friend Lord Winston referred to some of the benefits of this research and as I understand it, certain anaesthetics have only been made possible because of animal research. And who among us, my Lords, has not benefited from anaesthetics? So the research is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms, and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. And crucially, this point has been made by several. It is critical to responding to health emergencies, including a future pandemic which none of us want to see, but it remains one of the most significant threats to our national security.

Now, scientific advances are being made by the life sciences community, but I put it to the House that we must recognise that alternatives are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole animal models, but the UK must support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods. And this brings me to the motion. I don't have time to talk about some of the constitutional points made by either the noble Lord Lord Kerr or Baroness Bennett.

I have some sympathy when you hear references to Henry VII's clauses and so on, but I don't think this is the subject of today's debate. My the problems I see, my Lord, is at certain parts of the life sciences sector are facing unacceptable and unsustainable pressure from the non-peaceful actions of campaigners, however understandable, that threaten the integrity of the sector. Now, I myself have visited some of these research establishments and I have spoken to scientific researchers who have been assaulted and who have suffered intimidation.

So I do understand the point made by my noble friend and others. When you talk to the people in that condition and the systematic, systematic targeting of key strategic points in secondary and tertiary supply chains is having a serious effect and the knock on effects of disrupted research, hostile working environments and escalating security costs are already raising concerns in the life sciences sector about the future viability of research and development in the UK. There are already reports of disinvestment, and if this research were to leave the UK, so would go investment, talent and a loss of our research infrastructure, which would permanently damage the UK's sovereign capabilities to develop medicines and to respond to future health emergencies.

So it's against this background that I put it to your Lordships. There is a case for designating life sciences establishments as part of key critical national infrastructure. And incidentally, my Lords, in the changing geopolitical world in which we now live. This House has heard references not that long ago to the critical importance of undersea cables or space infrastructure, which are absolutely vital to us. And of course, as has been pointed out, it is also economically important for the UK. Over 300,000 people are employed in the life sciences sector.

Now I just would add an end by saying this, that the right to peaceful protest should be protected. In my view, it is essential in a democracy. It's the non-peaceful systematic disrupting of supply chains by campaigners that could lead to an erosion of our national research, and the damage will be permanent. It would undermine the government's plans for growth in the life sciences sector, and it would lead to adverse health outcomes for UK civilians and leave the UK reliant on foreign assistance in future pandemic scenarios.

Now I wish to. Only one last point is this proposed legislation at odds with the government's alternative strategy. And my Lords, I do not think it is. It's very important to realise that it's the same scientific community who use animal models that are the most heavily invested in driving alternatives forward, and if the infrastructure supporting animal research collapses in the UK, it will collapse. The same infrastructure that supports the development of alternatives. Not only does this pose a significant threat to public health outcomes, but it could damage the UK's ambitions to be a leader in non-animal alternatives.

Now, for these reasons, my Lord, I hope the House will think very carefully about voting for this fatal motion, however well intentioned it may appear to some members to be.
16:54
16:55
16:56
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
So it's a pleasure to follow my >> So it's a pleasure to follow my right Reverend noble friend. I will be be brief. I think we've it's been very clear to me in the course of this debate that, yes, we need of this debate that, yes, we need the life sciences in this, in this country, and yes, we probably do conduct them in a better manner than, than in many other parts of the world. And that's a good reason for for maintaining them here. I'm really grateful for what the Lord, the Minister, said in opening that we're hoping to phase out as quickly as we can animal testing, but that isn't practicable as yet.

Many of the things that have been talked about, the horrendous examples and what the noble Lord Winston said about about the death threats he's received, what others have said about spikes being thrown up. These are criminal offences already. We don't we don't need to add this to the schedule to make these criminal offences. I think we need to be very clear that this is about adding things that are not crimes at the moment to what is, what is criminal. And I think as we've as the conversation has gone on, I am concerned about legislative overreach.

I am concerned not just about this instance, but this House, this this country works on precedent. And if we allow secondary legislation to to make such a change as today, then what inhibits governments in future from making even more egregious changes through secondary legislation? Henry. The eighth clauses, if we want to call them that. And so. Well, I couldn't actually vote in favour of the fatal motion today. Having heard your Lordships House's debate, I think I would appreciate some reassurances from the Minister in responding to the debate as to what are the limits.

How wide could this go? How does today not set a precedent that will enable other Ministers in the future to equally place very wide Statutory Instruments before us that go beyond what was discussed? When the original bill was discussed, I would have preferred, had this been dealt with through a small act, a small bill that we could have dealt with separately. But we are where we are, my.
16:58
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
Lords are. >> Lords are. >> I'll be brief. >> I have. >> A number of concerns. This is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A number of concerns. This is really part of a trend towards silencing dissent to protect silencing dissent to protect corporate interests. It is hard to think of any legislation in recent years which has enhanced people's right to dissent or protest, even though almost all emancipatory change has been the outcome of protests. So this we seem to have a kind of a social evolution going in reverse here. There does not appear to be much of a public consultation about this either.

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the CIS states. The consultation, quote, has taken place informally via engagement with key stakeholders, including the National Police Chiefs Council, the National Police Coordination Centre and local police forces who regularly police protest activity targeting the life sciences sector, unquote. No mention is made of any discussion with civil society organisations or any public invitation to comment on the sea. So it appears that informally just means discussing it with some highly privileged parties, which seems to exclude public in general.

The bill really opens the Pandora's box, and it is only a matter of time before something else can be classified as infrastructure to prevent protests. And the protests are not really just about the labs and offices and the pharmaceutical facilities. People won't even be allowed to gather at the roads and streets leading to those facilities, because that that will inevitably be part of the infrastructure as well. So can the Minister explain how, in the absence of protests and related disruption, corporations would have any incentive to end unethical practices? I agree with other speakers who are saying, really, that the government should withdraw this s I hold a proper public consultation and bring an act to this House so that we can have an opportunity to amend it.
17:01
17:02
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Everybody saying I will be brief and then quite a lot of them aren't, but I will do my best to be brief. And I would like to say first that I, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Bennett has said. I think she has summed up the problems that we are facing here in this chamber. And I would like to mention something that I have said many times in this chamber for many bills, and that is this government is actually putting in more and more repressive legislation.

You are getting worse than the previous government. You are just adding to their repressive agenda. And I think that the Labour Party has actually failing the nation when it keeps adding crime after crime into into anti-protest legislation. Now, I'm sure the noble Lords Minister knows that the six Palestine action activists who had been imprisoned and who went to court were actually they came away without having any charges corroborated against them. They are free. And it seems to me that what this legislation is going to do is actually make things even more complicated for the police.

The police again and again say that it's too complicated at the moment. It needs streamlining and it needs to make more sense. All of legislation relating to protest. And like it or not, this government is losing the public. If a jury cannot find against six people who broke into a factory and smashed things up, if they can't find them guilty, you are losing the public. The public is actually saying to you, we just don't believe you anymore, that you are pushing things too far.

So I would say if you if you couldn't even get that case through the courts, you have wasted police time, you have wasted court time. You have actually made lives of those six people quite unpleasant and nasty for some for some time. And really, this is overreach and you know it is. And you should just not do it.
17:04
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thanks. support the motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, if she decides to test the opinion of the House. I thank all noble peers across the House for their powerful contributions on transparency, proportionality and the right to dissent. The UK life sciences sector is something we should cherish. It is a jewel in our economic crown, generating tens of billions of pounds in annual turnover and employing hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

However, the protection of this essential industry, while necessary, should never come at the expense of our fundamental democratic freedoms. Sadly, this Statutory Instrument is on the wrong side of that argument. Time and again. Under the previous conservative government, they undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping, unnecessary powers as set out by my noble friend Lord B, that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. And I would argue, even at at that time, the law covered Non-peaceful protest that has been described by some of the noble members in this debate and as set out in the arguments, the very powerful arguments by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester.

We on these benches consistently oppose the Public Order Act 23, viewing it as a troubling example of the criminalisation, criminalisation of peaceful dissent and an unwarranted expansion of policing powers. It's therefore heartbreaking to see the new government choosing to follow this same path, rather than reversing some of these damaging restrictions. The regulations that are actually before us seek to rebrand ordinary research and manufacturing sites, including those licensed under the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986, as key national infrastructure.

This designation risks turning legitimate peaceful protest into a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment to place a pharmaceutical laboratory or a beagle breeding facility on the same legal footing as our energy networks, transport hubs, or the M25, is, I believe, my Lords, overreach. Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns about animal testing or pharmaceutical oversight, should not be treated as threats to national security. The government justifies this expansion by citing pandemic resilience, but the facilities being protected often have at best an unclear or indirect link.

Despite the government's focus on vaccine production, we still have no clear public evidence that facilities such as MBR acres have played a direct role in Covid 19 vaccine development, yet they are folded into these protections in the name of pandemic resilience. The police already possessed strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour, such as we've had described in the chamber today, long before these new laws were imposed. Powers. Under the Public Order Act 1986 and other legislation already provide a robust framework to address criminal damage, harassment and trespass.

The government has yet to provide compelling evidence that these existing powers are inadequate, rather than simply less
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page