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

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

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

A significant number of my constituents have contacted me recently with their concerns about today’s statutory instrument. They believe—and I support them—that reclassifying animal testing facilities as national infrastructure will allow the use of sweeping injunctions and protest restrictions that are designed for airports, major roads, utilities and energy networks. Those powers were never intended to shield private industries from lawful public dissent.

Animal testing facilities do not meet any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure. As other Members have said, the country would not grind to a halt, nor would national safety or economic stability be threatened, if protests took place outside such sites. Treating them as equivalent to the M25, power stations or airports is clear and unjustified overreach.

There is no legislative gap that the statutory instrument needs to fill. As others have said, existing laws provide robust protection against criminal damage, harassment, threats, trespass and intimidation. Police already have extensive powers to intervene when protests become unsafe or disruptive, including new powers that were introduced to cover persistent or cumulative disruption. This amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 is therefore unnecessary as well as disproportionate.

I am particularly concerned that the measure appears to be targeted at specific facilities, rather than addressing any genuine national risk. Using secondary legislation to quietly expand protest restrictions undermines parliamentary scrutiny and public trust.

I want to pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich about timing. In November, the Government published their long-awaited strategy for phasing out animal testing, which was welcomed as a step towards greater transparency and ethical progress. Restricting protest and public scrutiny of animal testing at the same time sends out a contradictory and deeply concerning message.

The objections are not about condoning unlawful behaviour, but about protecting the long-standing democratic right to peaceful protest, especially on issues about which public information is tightly restricted and ethical concerns are significant. That is why I believe that the whole House should debate and vote on the measure. I hope that the Minister will consider that in her response.