(3 days, 2 hours ago)
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.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberWe are putting 3,000 extra community police in our neighbourhoods by next April, and there will be a named officer that people can contact. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the wider drugs problem. Since we came into power, this Government have put in place a very successful county lines programme, which is targeting the lines where people are forced, and often exploited, to take drugs across the country. I am happy to talk to her about that more. I have seen it in action for myself in Merseyside and the impact that it is having there, but she is right to highlight this very deep problem, which we are absolutely determined to tackle.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
More than 2,000 wildlife crimes were recorded last year, but fewer than 50 resulted in convictions. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on strengthening the Hunting Act 2004. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions she has had with departmental colleagues to ensure effective enforcement of any forthcoming legislation? Will the Home Office consider making key wildlife offences, including foxhunting, notifiable crimes so that these crimes are recorded and prioritised by police forces?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight those crimes and the need for us to prioritise them in a way which they were not under the previous Government. The National Police Chiefs’ Council strategy on rural and wildlife crime will set operational and organisational policing priorities for tackling those crimes, and it will be published imminently. Once it has, I would love to have a proper conversation with him.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Lady makes a very good point, and it is undoubtedly the case that the staff on the ground during this incident saved lives.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and the tributes that have already been paid in the House. She will know, though, that the British Transport police is facing an unprecedented funding deficit that threatens safety on our railways. There is currently a shortfall of £8.5 million and a threat to nearly 300 jobs. Will the Home Secretary therefore meet the Transport Secretary to discuss how we can fully fund the BTP as a matter of urgency?
I repeat that the BTP has been awarded £415 million for the year 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 6% on the previous year. I am sure that the Transport Secretary is considering the wider funding issues.