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

Irene Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Sir Alec, although I am not a member of the Committee; it is much appreciated. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

As a new MP and a new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich chaired its predecessor APPG some 40 years ago—I feel that I must make my feelings on this matter known. When we speak about key national infrastructure and life sciences, it is really about the beagles and all the other animals that are tested on in laboratories. I have received many emails from constituents and organisations who are extremely concerned.

By reclassifying animal testing facilities as key national infrastructure and by increasing the powers available to respond to protest activity viewed as disruptive, this proposal will oppress the public’s right to protest about animal welfare. In my view, the argument that that is necessary to protect the UK’s pandemic preparedness and its ability to produce vaccines is not valid. An estimated 92% of drugs fail human clinical trials, despite having passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Our bodies are not the same as animal bodies, so it is not surprising that our drugs are not translating well from one species to another.

Only 14% of the UK public think it acceptable to use dogs in medical research to benefit people, which means that 86% of people think it is wrong. In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing that 1.8 million additional animals, including 97 beagles, were bred for animal research but were never used. We do not know what happened to those animals and there is no trace of the outcome, but I think we can all guess.

As we have heard, the strategy for replacing animals in science came out only last month. I feel that the proposal contradicts its goals by calling animal testing facilities key national infrastructure. Surely the SI hinders our Labour manifesto commitment to supporting scientists to transition from animal-based to human-specific medical research and work. The disappointing defence of animal experimentation runs counter to both public opinion and scientific evidence.

I realise that, sadly, the proposal may go through, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the implications of restricting public scrutiny of animal testing and allowing facilities that use animals in research to receive protection under the auspices of key national infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that

“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”

That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.

[Irene Campbell]

I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

[Sarah Jones]

It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.

[Irene Campbell]

I have.

[Sarah Jones]

I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.