Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble and right reverend friend. I will be brief. It has been very clear to me in this debate that we need the life sciences in this country, and we probably conduct them in a better manner than many other parts of the world do, and that is a good reason for maintaining them here.

I am really grateful for what the Minister said in opening: that we are hoping to phase out animal testing as quickly as we can, but that is not practicable yet. Many of the horrendous examples referred to, such as the death threats received by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the throwing of spikes, are criminal offences already. We do not need to add them to the schedule to make them criminal offences. We need to be clear that this is about adding actions that are not crimes at the moment to what is criminal.

As the conversation has gone on, I have become concerned about legislative overreach. I am concerned not just about this instance; this House and this country work on precedent, and if we allow secondary legislation to make such a change today, what will inhibit future Governments in making even more egregious changes through secondary legislation—or Henry VIII clauses if we want to call them that?

Although I cannot vote in favour of the fatal amendment today, having heard your Lordships’ debate, I would appreciate some reassurances from the Minister. What are the limits? How wide could this go? Does today not set a precedent that will enable future Ministers to place very wide statutory instruments before us that go beyond what was discussed when the original Bill was considered?

I would have preferred that this be dealt with separately through a small Bill, but we are where we are.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I have a number of concerns. This SI is part of a trend towards 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.

We seem to have a kind of social evolution in reverse here. There does not appear to have been much public consultation on this SI, either. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI states that the consultation

“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”.

No mention is made of any discussion with civil society organisations or any public invitation to comment on the SI. So it appears that “informally” just means discussing it with some highly privileged parties, which seems to exclude the public in general.