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

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec.

I will start by talking briefly about the underlying issue of animal testing, before making more general comments about restrictions on the right to protest. I think I am right in saying that the only commitment made in the 1997 general election manifesto that was not implemented by the Blair Government was the pledge to establish a royal commission on vivisection, which was scuppered by opposition from the life sciences sector. As I recall, they justified their stance by saying that if there were more transparency around what scientists were doing, they would be at personal risk. As I understand it, one of the reasons we are here today is to consider restrictions on the right to protest about animal testing. I want to make it clear from the outset that I totally condemn any abuse or harassment of individuals working in the sector, but laws are already in place to deal with that. Indeed, some activists, whose behaviour in the past went far beyond the pale, are currently serving very long prison sentences as a result.

I welcome the Government’s publication of the road map for phasing out animal testing, but I am sad that so much time has been wasted since 1997—time with which we could have made progress—and that so many millions of animals have suffered as a result. I am not opposed to all animal testing, but I believe that the vast majority of experiments are unnecessary, ineffective and inhumane, for reasons that I think my hon. Friends will set out. I hope to see the day when we have developed humane alternatives to all animal testing, so that it ends.

To give one example, I have in recent years met scientists at the University of Bristol in a bid to stop them using the forced-swim test. They were looking at the stress that mice experienced when drowning, and whether giving them antidepressants made them feel a bit more zen about the whole thing. The scientists told me that they had done that test over and over again, but had yet to observe anything interesting. That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I am very glad that there is a moratorium on that test now.

In 2015, I attended a meeting in the Commons at which the main speakers were Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, and the eminent zoologist Professor Michael Balls, father of Ed. It was a rather unlikely pairing, but they were joining forces to call for an end to beagle breeding for the purposes of animal experiments. A decade later, the sector involved in testing on beagles is still calling for more time to find replacements. I just do not think that that is acceptable. We need to shine a light on what is happening and question whether such tests are needed. I grew up seeing images of beagles with cigarettes strapped to their mouths to test the effects of smoking. That has rightly been stopped, but I do not think that the public realises that testing on beagles—indeed, testing on dogs—continues.

To what extent will these measures, if implemented, prevent peaceful protest against animal testing? If Will Young—whom I have also heard speaking in Parliament about MBR Acres—was thinking of peacefully handcuffing himself to the fence at MBR Acres once again, would the Minister think he’d “better leave right now”? [Laughter.] Thank you. Somebody was going to make that gag— I thought it might as well be me.

Let me turn to the more general issue. I fiercely defend the right to protest. I am a Bristol MP; we have quite a reputation for it. I went out to Russia under my own steam to observe the end of the Pussy Riot trial, and the powerful speeches from Nadya, Maria and Katya from their cage in the courtroom. However, I accept that there should be limitations to the right to protest. I accept that we cannot have the country grinding to a halt; we must appreciate the impact on people’s lives, and sometimes protesters do not.

A few years ago, a protest by Extinction Rebellion in Bristol blocked the M32, causing a five-mile queue. I remember vividly that there was a woman in a car in that queue who was in labour, trying to get to hospital, and her husband ran to the front of the queue. One of the activists was quoted in the press as saying, “It’s all right, we allowed her through.” I thought it was quite shocking that they should feel entitled to give somebody in labour permission to get to hospital.

I have also defended the Government’s plans to curb the cumulative impact of protests. We have a number of hotels housing asylum seekers in Bristol, and of course people should have the right to express their views—however much I might disagree with some of them—but it is not right that people are targeted week after week, and that the communities around them have to live in fear of possibly violent protests. I accept that; and I have defended that, but I also believe that people have the right to choose to break the law. However, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.

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. The fact that we do not know what tests are being carried out makes it rather more difficult to make such judgments, so I return to my earlier point: transparency about what testing is going on is important—the public have a right to know.

Transparency is also important when it comes to business in this place. We should not seek to place limitations on fundamental democratic rights—in this case, the right to protest—through a small Committee such as this. I therefore ask the Minister to facilitate at the very least a deferred Division on the motion, so that all MPs may vote, but ideally we would have a proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.

[Sarah Jones]

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

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

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