Lords Chamber

Wednesday 4th February 2026

(began 1 hour, 52 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
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
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page