Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThe 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.
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.