Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:28 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 295 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 November 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 45th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come on to the SI in detail in a moment, but I begin by reminding the House of a Labour manifesto commitment that is central to this area of work.
The Labour Government have planned to champion robust and world-leading animal welfare standards. On Tuesday 11 November, the Government published our animals in science strategy, a joint effort led by my noble friend Lord Vallance and supported by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and me. 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, industry and academia. We have been clear that this can be done only 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 therefore critical—this is where I return to the SI—that, although the Government’s direction of travel is to find alternatives to animals in science and phase out their use, we ensure at the same time that we get growth potential from this business in the world at large. The protection of those critical resources, while we try to reduce and eliminate their use where possible, is therefore essential. The purpose of the SI is to better protect facilities that are indeed essential for developing treatments for human and animal diseases. That is why, although the government manifesto’s 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, to pandemic preparedness and to capabilities in this area. In my view, recent experience underscores why we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
This Government want the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences 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 crucial to the safety testing of new medicines and vaccines. No one knows that better than my noble friend Lord Vallance, who dealt with such issues during the response to the Covid-19 outbreak; its contribution in that instance cannot be overstated.
When it comes to the SI, recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life science sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines, medicines and therapies, and has disrupted supply chains that are, in my view, indispensable to research and national health protection. As a result of that disruption, work that is of significant benefit to society is, I am afraid, placed at risk. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of the day to act without delay.
That brings me directly to the subject of our debate today. The legislation before the House will address the issue that I have outlined by amending Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 to add the life sciences 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, obviously, have been arrested by the police and potentially warned by them, and the CPS will have gone through those charges, but anyone who ultimately faces that conviction will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the police’s ability to, in my view, 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 legally by Parliament under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research and academic laboratories carry out research involving animals.
It is clear that when Parliament passed the Public Order Act 2023, it explicitly deemed it necessary to build in the ability for new elements to be added to Section 7. The original section covered vital infrastructure being targeted by overtly disruptive protest; the life science sector now faces precisely the same situation. Parliament deliberately framed the definitions in the Act widely and explicitly allowed Parliament to add to the list of key national infrastructure, should the need arise. Today, that need has arisen.
If I may, I will directly address the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. First, I disagree with the stance and content of the amendment, but I think I have a duty to explain why. Let us take the components in turn. The noble Baroness has argued that the regulations constitute “legislative overreach” and
“extend the definition of ‘critical national infrastructure’ beyond its appropriate meaning”.
I will listen to her comments, but it is important that we put this 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 posed to the country, in my view it 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. I suggest that support for activity in a medical crisis meets that criterion.
Secondly, the noble Baroness argues in her amendment that the proposal from me and the Government today further restricts
“the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
Let me be clear to this House: 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 protest myself. This measure is not to limit protests: it does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protests, but there is a balance to be struck, and the right to protest does not extend to causing serious disruption to or imperilling that key national infrastructure.
Finally, the noble Baroness’s amendment includes an assertion that
“sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken”.
I referred in my opening remarks—I put those at the top of my speech, because I am quite proud of this— to the fact that my noble friends Lord Vallance and Lady Hayman of Ullock have, with me, brought forward a manifesto commitment in the first year of this Labour Government to publish a strategy to replace animals in science. It sets out how we will create a revolutionary research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods, the key caveat being “wherever possible”. That technology, which my noble friend is very much on top of, will develop. We hope to replace animals in science as we can and to phase them out, in line with our manifesto commitment.
Through the Office for Life Sciences, my noble friend Lord Vallance has allocated £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 their unnecessary use. The Government’s plan will support that work to end animal testing, wherever possible, and roll out alternatives as soon as it is effective and safe to do so. In doing so, that will contribute to the export potential and 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.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the basis that they are legislative overreach; they extend the definition of “critical national infrastructure” beyond its appropriate meaning; the practical need for such an extension has not been adequately justified; they represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest; and sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both outlining the statutory instrument and explaining my amendment to decline to approve it. I am 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 amendment to the point that I believe that most people in this Chamber, particularly the Benches to my right, might be persuaded to agree with. I will finish not on points about animal testing or the right to protest, but on 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 it was democratically debated, pored over and scrutinised, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. This statutory instrument is a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach.
I start with animal testing, the phasing out of which, as the amendment says, is not going nearly quickly enough under the replacing animals in science strategy. Why do I argue that this is too slow? It is for morality and for efficacy. There is public revulsion, yes, which results in widespread peaceful protest about the treatment of more than 2.5 million animals a year used in medical research here. More than that, there is a recognition of the inadequacy of animal testing, the “valley of death” that sees drugs apparently showing promise in animals failing to work in humans. Animal Free Research UK reports that that is the case for over 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 are 90 million years of evolution between humans and rodents.
However, there are alternatives. Our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, said last 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 SI will be an active discouragement to the commercial companies to push on in this direction, the direction in which the Government say they want to head and for which public pressure—democratic forces—is clearly important.
My second argument, to quote the amendment, is that the SI reflects
“a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
That was the key concern in the debate on the SI in the other place of many of the 26 Labour MPs who voted against it. The Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, was among the 110 “no” tally. Among the Labour opponents were Stella Creasy and Kerry McCarthy, former Shadow Minister of State for Defra and a former Minister for Climate. As was suggested after the debate by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole:
“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”.
Protest is part of our political system, and it is a crucial part of delivering democracy. The Minister suggested that recent developments in protest had demanded that this SI be brought in. I can go back to the 19th century, when the UK was a leader in protest movements, such as anti-vivisection, through the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
I have circulated two briefings to noble Lords. One of those represents some 21 signatories, among them Protect the Wild, Camp Beagle, Medicine Without Cruelty and the Network for Police Monitoring, known as Netpol. It says that some 30,000 emails have been sent to noble Lords; I apologise to the many who have written to me personally, but I do not have the capacity to respond individually. 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, this indicates that the SI in question represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of public order powers—already some of the most far-reaching protest-related restrictions in recent UK law—and would extend them to a broad and very loosely defined sector. When it comes to animal testing, the Government have failed to demonstrate why existing laws covering harassment, obstruction, criminal damage and public order are not already sufficient.
I turn to what I believe is my point of broadest appeal, and an appeal of considerable constitutional significance. I thank Jennifer Scotney, our staff member, for going through all the debates on the original Bill. In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the right honourable Kit Malthouse stated:
“The offence will cover major roads, railways, airports, harbours, and downstream oil and gas infrastructure”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill list transport and energy, and add newspaper printing infrastructure, but 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. KNI was identified as specific, identifiable physical systems whose operation underpins daily life. Life sciences, by contrast, is a broad sector, operating largely on private land, consisting of thousands of sites of varying importance. To quote the right honourable Kit Malthouse again:
“Minor infrastructure such as undesignated roads and small-scale power stations will be out of scope”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 134.]
If minor or diffused 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.
Emergency services, health, and food services were explicitly rejected as not being suitable for inclusion in the Bill; Ministers said that they were not in scope. In Committee in the Commons, Sarah Jones MP proposed adding emergency services; this was rejected by the Minister. The response in the Commons to a proposal suggesting adding farms and food production was that this would
“significantly increase the scope of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/22; col. 606.]
In our own House, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the then Conservative Minister, said
“we do not believe it is necessary to add … into the list … at present”.—[Official Report, 16/11/22; col. 936.]
referring to other sectors. If ambulances, hospitals and food supply were excluded for being too expansive to be included in the Bill, life sciences represent 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. Protests at animal testing and life science facilities, however, are long established—going back to the 19th century, as I said—well known and were explicitly referenced during the passage of the Bill. Martha Spurrier of 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 that person’s right to”
protest
“becomes an infringement of other rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 09/06/2022; col. 72.]
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.
I come to the broader position in which we are debating the SI. The Public Law Project website says that
“for as long as delegated legislation has existed there have been concerns about the way it is used. Sometimes the Government leaves difficult and controversial matters of policy to Statutory Instruments so that the Government can avoid the difficulties of having to pass a law”.
I posit that this is happening here.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years, so I have heard many debates along the lines of a 2014 report from the Hansard Society titled: The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation. That report says, and this is the key part of my argument, that:
“The House of Lords should make greater, albeit judicious, use of its power of veto”
when referring to SIs. I put it 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 Benches for free speech.
I state only the obvious when I say that politics is now in a great state of flux and the future is 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 have in their hands but decline to use—could, in the future, be a far graver threat to the nation’s liberty than even what we have before us today. Does Parliament make the law, or have the Executive morphed into a monstrous Henry VIII hologram, saying that the law means whatever they say it means? In this age, particularly, that is a very dangerous precedent to set. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Just Stop Oil blocking motorways and I do not agree with her now about animal testing, which must be carefully controlled but is still essential, but I 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 Imperial College; I know a bit about it. The point where I disagree with the Government, and strongly agree with the noble Baroness, is on whether a research laboratory can properly be designated as key national infrastructure under the 2023 Act.
Section 7 of the Act makes it an offence to interfere with the
“use or operation of any key national infrastructure”.
It defines key national infrastructure rather precisely, as the Minister read out. There are eight categories; seven are to do with transport and the eighth, rather oddly, is about the production of newspapers—presumably the connection is communication. Section 7(7) of the Act permits the Secretary of State to add further infrastructure. Hence this SI.
In all our debates, no one ever mentioned laboratories. When we were passing this Act, animal welfare did not come up. We thought we were dealing with oil, gas, rail, road and air, because that is what Ministers and the Bill said. If we were thinking of what extra—
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that proper animal research goes on well beyond laboratories, in fields and many other places? He underestimates the issue in considering laboratories; it is far wider than that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, but I think I will stick to my line of argument. I do not think we discussed laboratories. Hansard shows that we did not.
It is important to remember that the demonstrator outside the factory or laboratory is already covered by the Act because he is obstructing the road. He is probably already covered by the Public Order Act 1986, but he is certainly covered by the 2023 Act. Road transport infrastructure is right at the top of the list of “key national infrastructure”. This statutory instrument will add the laboratory or the factory itself, not access to it, and deem it national infrastructure that is key to the nation. That is quite a stretch. If the pharmaceutical industry is key national infrastructure, what about food production or distribution, the NHS or radio and television transmitters? All three cases seem more plausible than a life sciences factory or laboratory.
I agree with the noble Baroness that this statutory instrument would set a dangerous precedent. It is in the spirit of Igor Judge, whom we miss so much, that I register my unease. Unlike Igor, I cannot 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 have worked in the Executive; I know that he was right. This instrument pushes the boundaries too far, and we should push back.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been in this House a little longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have great respect for many of the things that she has said, and we have worked together on other Bills. Over 50 years, I have continued to do animal research and held a licence under the Home Office. My laboratory, where I still have some work going on, uses animals and will have to continue to do so for the research it is doing. We have to consider that.
It is important that animal research is seen as a respectable endeavour and is properly policed, which, on the whole, the Home Office does exceptionally well. I am grateful to the Minister, who has given a very good speech explaining how this has been done in this House and that the Government need to try to reduce the number of animals in research, as we are doing and with which I totally agree.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I have some problem with his comment, because it would not protect me. I have had, in the years I have been doing research, until quite recently, repeated death threats. I have had Special Branch at my house, with my 94-year-old mother hiding in the kitchen because we thought there was a bomb on the doorstep. We have had a whole range of issues. My friends who worked in the same laboratories have had fires in their houses. We have to understand that this is a very real threat to research. Some people give up research because they get so concerned, not necessarily about the value of the research they are doing but about the reputational risk they run due to the understanding of the work they are doing. We need to make it much clearer why such work is necessary. I suggest to the noble Baroness, with respect, that she is not entirely correct in the reason she gives for it being given up.
There are numerous examples I might suggest to some noble Lords in the Chamber. I have counted that, in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over my time, there must have been at least 100 families who have benefited from the technique of in vitro fertilisation. That was made possible only by experimenting on animals, to make sure that we were not producing embryos in the human that would be abnormal, distorted or deformed, or that would die after birth or later on. That is one example. Equally, in perinatology, there has been clear evidence that animal research was definitely necessary for understanding the breathing of an animal to learn how we can actually prevent damage to infants. Indeed, years ago, I did some of that research, in a very small way, with mice, along with a man called Jonathan Wigglesworth, who was a very famous scientist —much more famous and a much better scientist than I was. There are numerous examples.
The idea that we can use tissues or embryoids is far from the mark. 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 that we cannot control. That is a really important issue in science, and we have to understand that that is a critical question. It is true, too, in DNA technology—we still sometimes have to have the testing of that. Think of the number of people in this House who have had treatments for cancer that used animal research. Of course it needs to be reduced, but we must understand that the cells we are modifying and then putting back into a man or a woman still need extremal validation.
To some extent, the noble Baroness is, with respect, being a little inconsistent. Some three years ago, she and I worked on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which looked at the risks of modifying animals and modifying plants. There was a huge amount of misinformation around that, but eventually it did go through. I never saw then the noble Baroness make the points she now makes about animal research. The moral issues of animal research that she is talking about now certainly did not come up in that Bill. It was much more about making sure that, if we did produce animals in this way, we would not produce abnormal animals that would be poisonous or dangerous or deformed in some way. That is something that we have to consider. This is certainly an issue where she has been, in a sense, on the other side.
That Bill went to Third Reading and got Royal Assent without anybody really complaining about it. If the noble Baroness has complained about it, I certainly have not heard about it. Of course, at this very moment, the Government are considering, as they should, whether it should be implemented. If we do try to modify and improve animal farming and so on in the way that has been proposed, that would affect animal breeding. It is a Bill that I found difficult, but it certainly does not suggest we should not use animals carefully and with great moral care. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Baroness that her amendment is, in my view, unquestionably wrong, and I will certainly want to vote against it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, expresses lots of practical and ethical opinions that we might agree with, but that does not change the fact that this statutory instrument is an outrageous abuse of secondary legislation powers. As the Minister knows, a fatal amendment in this House almost never succeeds—but if ever a statutory instrument deserved a fatal amendment, this is it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing it forward. If the Government had any conscience, they would, even at this stage, acknowledge the abuse and withdraw it.
When the Public Order Bill was debated and agreed in both Houses, the meaning of “major infrastructure” was debated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. My noble friend Lord Beith, who is in his place, spotted the danger at that time. At Second Reading of that Bill, he said:
“I question the provision of Clause 7(7) which allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of key national infrastructure by statutory instruments. This could create an enormously wide area of scope for the powers in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/11/22; col. 152.]
That is exactly what has happened. How right he was to be so concerned. Indeed, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the same concerns with her Amendment 38. But now, under a different Government, those fears have been exactly realised. Can the Minister say how wide the statutory instrument casts the net? He talked of some 350,000 employees, which suggests an awful lot of sites and facilities.
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 this Government are now planning to extend this so extensively that pretty much everything can become national infrastructure. This is another effort by Labour to quell, chill and kill protest.
The Minister will know well that the Crime and Policing Bill is in Committee in your Lordships’ House. That too contains clauses that widen the scope of the criminalisation of protest considerably. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said that the provisions of that Bill will be reviewed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, in a review that the Government commissioned. However, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Marks queried why, having put all that quelling of protest into statute, we would then have a review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. By that time, it will be too late to change it, because it will all be there, and so the review will not count for much. My noble friend Lord Marks fears as I do that, once these draconian laws are on the statute books, they will stay there. If the Government are serious about seeing what the report recommends, they would not rush through this statutory instrument in advance of the report.
When this statutory instrument was debated in Committee in the other place, the Minister’s colleagues were very sceptical about it. Kerry McCarthy, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, said:
“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”.
Kerry McCarthy has it right there.
Indeed, there were several Labour Members who were very doubtful about this. John McDonnell said:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/12/25; cols. 7-12.].
But it was not properly debated; that is what we in this House have to do, to make sure that we return it for further consideration.
Lord Willetts (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred in her powerful speech to what she called the “revulsion” against the use of animals in medical experiments. That is why there has been a long-term strategy, reinforced by this Government but also pursued by previous Governments, of the so-called “three Rs”: the reduction, replacement and 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 some of the most important features of the world as it is—which have not yet been referred to by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—are the 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, export and import of large amounts of medical treatments—pharmaceuticals—have to comply with that international agreement, to which most countries, including the UK, have subscribed. I did not hear the Green Party say that it thought we should withdraw from that international agreement.
Therefore, if animals, 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. As Science Minister, I saw the extraordinary range of activities by protesters going way beyond the normal human right to protest, which of course we must support, and designed to make it impossible for the UK life sciences industry to comply with the international regulation to which we were all committed. Compliance with that regulation is necessary for our wider access to drugs and capacity to innovate and produce new drugs.
There has been discussion of national infrastructure, as if somehow we are 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 and extraordinarily small number of facilities to enable us to comply with those international requirements. If we were to lose those, it would not be a matter of protests outside every pharmacy: if we were to lose a very small number of key facilities, our capacity to respond to medical emergencies and deliver up-to-date medicines to people through the NHS would be much diminished.
I understand the noble Baroness’s 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. Surely, the lesson of Covid is how important that capacity is. Of course it is 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 in no doubt that it is.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I just want to throw in a bit of a spanner—which is to say that I am completely torn between the two sides. It might be helpful to explain my dilemma. First, I would like to give real credit to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for the work that he has done scientifically and the need to use animals in experiments, which he explained. I was partly moved to speak because I was a great admirer of, and friend of, neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who died a few years ago. I just wanted to note that he had to heroically stand his ground against intimidation, harassment, threats of violence and actual terror, which was deployed—not just against him—by animal rights activists.
He and other less well-known scientists, medical researchers, and staff in academia and in private companies were confronted by abuse and accused of conducting a holocaust—a completely inappropriate use of the term—on animals that was worse than the Nazis. I witnessed some of that.
This was long before organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action arrived on the scene, which blur the line between the democratic right to protest and the anti-democratic bullying of the public and institutions to do as the activists demand. That presents us with a genuine dilemma. I support the right to protest, but I sometimes worry that that right is used to justify people who are not interested in protesting but are interested in effecting the stoppage of a particular activity physically and through bullying people.
Having said all of that, I want to ask the Minister why this sector has come into scope only now and not before. I genuinely do not understand. Why has it been introduced as a statutory instrument, with no possibility of opposition, apart from via a fatal amendment? I was one of those people who was very worried about the Public Order Act and 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. That has been very well explained.
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 wish I had heard so much defence of the importance of animal research by politicians on all sides when those scientists were being attacked. I think of animal research in terms of epilepsy drugs, Parkinson’s disease, anti-cancer drugs and therapies such as Herceptin and tamoxifen. I find it disappointing that we stand up to defend it only when it is an industry that makes money. There is more to scientific research and animal research than that, surely.
However, I was also disappointed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and, particularly, by the briefings —goodness knows I received many of those emails. On the one hand, I agree with the right to protest and the concerns about constitutional overreach; I actually thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made some really excellent points—it is not often we agree—as to why this is slightly nerve-wracking. On the other hand, in all the emails I received—in fact, this was reproduced here by the noble Baroness—I have been lectured on the dangers of animal research, and I end up feeling that what I am being asked to vote on is whether I think animal research is important for medical science. I understand the three Rs, including replacement, and that it is not where we are going, but it is so important to emphasise that this animal research is going to carry on for some time—we cannot be dishonest about that. Therefore, if I am being asked to vote on this fatal amendment—and if it has been turned into a way of demonising researchers who work with animals—then I will either not vote for it or abstain.
I ask the Minister: why now? Why did he, or anybody else, not raise this before? I say to the noble Baroness: can I risk siding with people who are going to lecture us and make hectoring demonisations of the perfectly legitimate—and, in my view, heroic—scientists who do animal research? It is necessary for humanity, whatever its relationships with the economy.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and, more pertinent to this debate, a former named veterinarian—more than 30 years ago, I stress—to a university animal unit.
I realise that this issue is contentious and emotive, and I understand people’s concerns. However, with respect, I note that this is not the place to debate the provision and use of animals in research; 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. Therefore, I speak in support of these regulations and to oppose the fatal amendment.
The fatal amendment speaks of “legislative overreach” and suggests that it extends “critical national infra- structure” beyond its meaning. I will challenge that. The Public Order Act allows the Secretary of State to make different provision for different purposes—that was agreed by Parliament in the passing of that Act. Our biosecurity is more vulnerable than ever. We are threatened by potential epidemic or pandemic outbreaks of infectious disease in either humans or animals; I point out that foot and mouth disease, for example, is on the National Risk Register. Whether a disease outbreak occurs spontaneously or by bioterrorism—let us not forget that risk—it presents a huge threat to our food security, our animal health, our human health and the economy. I am satisfied, and indeed heartened, to see that life science establishments—which help us detect, manage or prevent those very serious events that I have mentioned—are regarded as critical national infrastructure.
The fatal amendment asserts that there is a lack of justification for the regulations and that they will facilitate
“a further restriction on the … right to peaceful protest”.
However, this SI does not change or extend any sanctions or restrictions already included in the Public Order Act 2023; it simply adds another type of infrastructure. I also note that the police believe that the current powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient in this case.
I cannot see that peaceful protest is in any way prevented but I am aware that protest actions in several sites have included things like spike devices being hurled into facilities to damage vehicles and puncture tyres, spray painting the homes of animal care staff, other harassments, and 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 that might use animals, whether for life science, medical or veterinary research, and the facilities that support those labs, are highly regulated and carry out legal activities of incredible value to human and animal health and welfare.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
Perhaps I may clarify, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that this matter was raised and the chairman, Sir Bernard Jenkin, told us that it was not for us to discuss whether the statutory instrument was correct. The job of that committee is to discuss whether the instrument is defective or duplicative, but not its general purpose. I take that to be the case.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Trees. I support the regulations. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for having tabled this amendment because it enables the House to consider matters we do not often have the chance to hear about or discuss, and they are important. It raises difficult and sensitive issues because, as the House knows only too well, it refers in great part to the use of animals in research.
I doubt whether there is a single Member in this House who positively wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided, and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, commend the Government for their current commitment to phase out this research and I, in turn, commend the noble Lord for being on the same trajectory when he was in government and for the support he has given. Reference has been made to the document published last year, the three Rs and so on.
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. As I understand it, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only because of animal research, and who among us has not benefited from anaesthetics? 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. As has been said by several noble Lords, it is critical to responding to health emergencies, including a future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security. Scientific advances are being made by the life sciences community, but we must recognise that alternatives are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models. The UK must support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.
This brings me to the amendment. I do not have time to talk about some of the constitutional points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have some sympathy when I hear references to Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I do not think this is the subject of today’s debate. The problem, as I see it, is that 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. I have visited some of these research establishments and spoken to scientific researchers who have been assaulted and suffered intimidation, so I understand the point made by my noble friend and others. The 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.
If this research were to leave the UK, so would investment, talent and our research infrastructure, which would permanently damage the UK’s sovereign capability to develop medicines and to respond to future health emergencies. It is against this background that I put it to your Lordships that there is a case for designating life sciences establishments as part of critical national infrastructure. Incidentally, in the context of the changing geopolitical world in which we now live, this House heard references not that long ago to the vital importance of undersea cables and space infrastructure. As has been pointed out, this research is also economically important to the UK: over 300,000 people are employed in the life sciences sector.
The right to peaceful protest should be protected. In my view, it is essential in a democracy. It is the non-peaceful systematic disrupting of supply chains by campaigners that could lead to an erosion of our national research, and the damage would be permanent. It would undermine the Government’s plans for growth in the life sciences sector, lead to adverse health outcomes for UK civilians, and leave the UK reliant on foreign assistance in future pandemic scenarios.
Finally, is this proposed legislation at odds with the Government’s alternative strategy? I do not think it is. It is important to realise that it is the same scientific community who use animal models who are the most heavily invested in driving alternatives forward. If the UK infrastructure supporting animal research collapses, that 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. For these reasons, I hope the House will think carefully about voting for this fatal amendment, however well-intentioned it may appear to some noble Lords to be.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I had planned to make a number of points in this debate, but I am pleased to see that they have all been made for me in far more elegant style than I could have attained myself. I will emphasise one point that has not had quite enough attention yet, and that is that this country is a world leader in animal welfare in the life sciences and in the development of products from the life sciences.
If protesters succeed in their aims, they will not stop animal research; they will export it overseas. The countries to which they will export it may indeed be able to match our research excellence, but they could not, I suspect, match our commitment to animal welfare. For this reason particularly, but for a great many other reasons noble Lords have raised, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, my contribution will be very brief. It is the job of His Majesty’s Government to introduce regulations and laws. The Minister is today presenting to us draft regulations which were laid before the House on 27 November 2025, some months ago, for approval.
The point for me is that this is the 45th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It has scrutinised and gone through it all. What has it decided in the end? That it is expedient. It has no negative comment about it. Either we trust our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or we do not. As a House, we make that committee. That is the battle.
In the end, I have to support the approval of these regulations because I trust our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Where it has not found an SI expedient—I remember my history of your Lordships’ House from 2005—it has sent it back, but it has not done this now. We should follow our processes and procedures and go ahead and approve it.
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.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to a fascinating debate—some of it moral, some of it technical and latterly some of it even economic. But the amendment to the Motion asks us to make a simple decision: is it a case of overreach to define animal testing as national infrastructure? If it is overreach, we should support the amendment; if it is not, we should resist it. We each need to come to our own conclusion. I hope that we will have an opportunity to do so relatively soon.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, every noble Lord has said that they will be brief but then quite a lot are not. I will do my best to be brief.
First, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Bennett said. She summed up the problems we in this Chamber face.
Secondly, I have said many times in this Chamber, on many Bills, that this Government are putting in more and more repressive legislation. They are getting worse than the previous Government and are just adding to their oppressive agenda. The Labour Party is failing the nation when it keeps adding crime after crime into anti-protest legislation.
I am sure the Minister knows that the six Palestine Action activists who were imprisoned and went to court came away without having any charges against them corroborated. They are free. It seems that this legislation will make things even more complicated for the police. Again and again, the police say that all the legislation relating to protest is too complicated at the moment, needs streamlining and needs to make more sense. Like it or not, this Government are losing the public. If a jury cannot find against six people who broke into a factory and smashed things up, they are losing the public. The public are saying to them, “We just don’t believe you any more. You are pushing things to far”. If the Government could not even get that case through the courts, they have wasted police time and court time, and have made the lives of those six people unpleasant and nasty for some time. This is overreach; the Government know it is, and they should not do it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, these Benches will support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, if she decides to test the opinion of the House. I thank all Peers across the House for their powerful contributions on transparency, proportionality and the right to dissent.
The UK’s life sciences sector is something that 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, as my noble friend Lord Beith set out, the previous Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. I argue that even at that time, the law covered non-peaceful protest, as has been described by some Members in this debate and set out in the very powerful arguments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
We on these Benches consistently opposed the Public Order Act 2023, viewing it as a troubling example of the criminalisation of peaceful dissent and an unwarranted expansion of policing powers. It is therefore heartbreaking to see the new Government choosing to follow this same path rather than reversing some of those damaging restrictions. The regulations 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, 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 justify 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 has been described in the Chamber today. Long before these new laws were imposed, powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and other legislation already provided a robust framework to address criminal damage, harassment and trespass. The Government have yet to provide compelling evidence that those existing powers are inadequate rather than simply less convenient.
We must also consider the lack of transparency and the absence of a rights-based impact assessment for these measures. Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 restricts public information about these sites. Ironically, individuals may therefore find themselves criminalised for protesting near a facility that they did not even know was now designated, under this new system, as “protected infrastructure”. This is not just legal overreach but an outrageous expansion of state power that avoids meaningful public consultation and accountability, as was set out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
This proposal also sits in stark contrast with the Government’s own replacing animals in science strategy, as set out so ably by the Minister. To publish a road map for phasing out animal testing while simultaneously shielding those same facilities from public scrutiny and peaceful protest sends, at the very least, an inconsistent message. Throughout this debate, noble Lords have reminded us that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, not a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at the convenience of those who rule. Those who stand outside those sites are people who care deeply about animal welfare, scientific integrity and the kind of country we want to be. We should not treat people holding placards outside laboratories as if they are saboteurs of the national grid. I believe I have already covered anyone who has been violent and not been peaceful.
As ever, both the Conservative and Labour Benches are squeamish when it comes to fatal Motions. My suggestion to both those parties would be: in that case, do not use sweeping powers that diminish citizens’ rights through unamendable legislation. While Labour have been consistent on this, many years ago their own noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, produced a report suggesting that fatal Motions should sometimes be used. Even our new Lord Speaker has been known to support a fatal Motion or two from the Conservative Benches. More recently, we had a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose conclusion was stark:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
The regulations we are debating today are an appalling example of just that, as was so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Miller.
For all these reasons—the lack of necessity, the absence of transparency, the inconsistency with stated policy on animal testing, and the chilling effect on peaceful protest—I urge noble Lords to support the amendment to decline the regulations and to uphold our tradition of lawful, peaceful dissent.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a passionate debate, which we on these Benches welcome. Dealing with the statutory instrument before us gives us the opportunity to recognise the importance of our life sciences sector to public health, national resilience and the wider economy. It is therefore right that they should work and operate without sustained disruption, intimidation or obstruction.
The regulations, as outlined in the debate, extend the definition of “key national infrastructure” to include the life sciences sector. In doing so, they ensure that the police have access to a clear and consistent set of powers where protest activity moves beyond lawful expression and into serious interference with the use or operation of critical facilities.
It is important to be clear about what this instrument does and does not do. It does not prohibit peaceful protest, nor does it seek to suppress legitimate debate, including on matters that attract strong and sincerely held views. The right to protest remains a fundamental one. What these regulations address is conduct that is deliberately disruptive, sustained or targeted in a way that prevents lawful activity from taking place and places staff, researchers and patients at risk. Life sciences facilities have in the past been subject to precisely that kind of activity. Existing public order powers can be complex, reactive and fragmented. By bringing the life sciences sector within the framework established by the 2023 Act, the regulations provide greater legal clarity, earlier intervention where appropriate and a more proportionate and effective response to serious disruption.
We also note that the instrument is tightly focused. It does not create new categories of protest offence but applies an existing regime to a sector whose importance to the national interest is clear. The offences remain subject to established thresholds, safeguards and oversight, and their application must continue to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality.
For those reasons, we on these Benches are satisfied that the case for this instrument has been made. It strikes an appropriate balance between protecting critical national infrastructure and safeguarding the right to peaceful protest. We therefore support the regulations and believe that the House should approve them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, responds on her amendment, it is important that I respond on behalf of the Government to some of the points that have been raised. I do not intend to repeat the discussion points in my opening speech, but some of them may be referred to because they have generated debate. This debate has generated a lot of interesting and important points of principle, and I am grateful for the contributions. I shall respond to four broad points: the right to protest, the SI provision use, the use of animals in science and—the big question—why now? I will address those in turn.
The right to protest was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, speaking just now from the Front Bench. I want to be clear right now in front of this House: as I said in my opening statement, this is not about the rightful, peaceful protest which is a fundamental part of our democratic society. This measure does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protest. However, peaceful expression does not extend to causing serious disruption to the hard-working majority in the businesses in question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part in this careful, informed and widely acknowledged to be important debate. I express my great sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and all his colleagues who have been subjected to utterly unacceptable and illegal pressure as a result of their work. All the things that have been alluded to are illegal, remain illegal and I am sure will always be illegal. That is not what this instrument is talking about.
On the point of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, the noble Lord indeed was very helpful and we had a great deal of useful interaction when it was a Bill. I always opposed that Bill and I look to an article I wrote for Left Foot Forward on 25 January 2023, saying that this Bill should not go forward. That was, remained and still remains my position.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who said that international standards demand animal tests. Besides the UK there are, of course, many other countries looking to move at pace to get away from animal tests. I point in particular to leading action in India, the Netherlands and even the United States. As in the UK, all those actions are informed, and to some degree driven, by protests. That is part of the political process that is pushing in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, also unintentionally provided an argument against the Minister’s claim that this SI has be approved now, otherwise we will halt the approval of biocides and medicines, et cetera. The noble Lord referred to his time as Minister for Science. I looked up the dates: it was from 2010 to 2014. He said that even then unacceptable protests were happening. There is no evidence of anything new happening that justifies this SI.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who said that peaceful protest was not in any way stopped. I will pick up also on points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This was published without a full rights-based assessment. Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions have failed to rule out online activity or information sharing as not falling within scope. That puts NGOs and campaign groups at risk of criminalisation for lawful and utterly reasonable advocacy of boycotts, for public awareness campaigns and for education programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made the point that people are not allowed to know where these facilities are but could be criminalised for protesting near them, which really does identify the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out that there has been only one direction of travel over many years: the rights of people are going backwards while the rights of corporations are being advanced. That is what is happening and, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, we are seeing juries saying, “Enough is enough, this is not acceptable”. That is a true expression of public will.
I also thank the Minister—and I will round up on this point—for pointing out that this SI is rejectable, this House has the power to do this and this is within the constitution. The reasons why the SI should be rejected were laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that this is the clearest abuse of legislative power she can remember in 27 years. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This is my last sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, conjured up for many of us very fond memories of the noble Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this pushes the boundaries too far. Your Lordships’ House has a choice. This is so constitutionally important that I must ask to test the opinion of the House.