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

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I have to say, I was a tiny bit anxious about speaking on this issue today, because of the risk of being painted a hypocrite or a traitor to my scientific comrades. I am a biomedical scientist and have worked in premises licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I have worked in labs where animal models have been used—primarily fish embryos under five days. None the less, I will speak on this instrument because I am very concerned about a number of issues, and well-versed in the arguments about the necessity of animal models and testing versus investment in alternatives. I am disappointed that, instead of further regulation in this area, we are seeking to punish protesters.

I am probably right in saying that I am one of the few MPs who has ever grown human cells in a flask or replicated DNA in a lab, but it is important that we can bring some of these arguments in, because there is a desire within the science community to move away from animal models. I do not think that anyone wants to use animal models where they are not necessary.

It is undoubtedly true—undeniable—that advances have been made using animal models, but the fact remains that accuracy has always been a concern when using animal models, because to get closer to our biology, one would have to use animals that are no longer used in research, such as rhesus monkeys and other primates. That is why we need alternatives, and investment in alternatives. I did most of my research through in vitro models in Petri dishes, and it was incredibly frustrating that we were not yet at a point where we could have full confidence in those models. That is why we will always need some form of human testing at the end of the process when it comes to pharmacology.

With the advent of AI and the tools that are now available to scientists, we should be at the forefront of finding alternatives if we want to remain at the forefront of biological and life-sciences research in the UK. If we do not, I fear we will be left behind by other countries, which are also trying to speed up research. Animal models are slow; it takes a long time to get to the answer. They are also a messy environment: a scientist does not know whether the thing they are changing is ultimately what is making the difference; there is always the chance that something else is going on. So animal models are not the silver bullet that some people might think they are.

I have a real problem with the definition of “key national infrastructure”, because I think this measure makes a mockery of it. We are not talking about a source of water or electricity, or a main road or transport hub; we are talking about the ability of scientists to go about their daily business. I know of the abuse that scientists have suffered, but we have to balance that against the democratic right of people in our country to say, “Actually, no, this isn’t good, and we should be looking to alternatives.” Calling these premises “national infrastructure” is, quite honestly, hilarious, because a protest at a local site is not going to disrupt the whole country, or even a region. Yes, it might slow things down in the long run, but the reality is that the UK got the vaccine off the ground incredibly quickly in response to the last pandemic. I therefore find it a little distasteful that the main reason given in the briefing notes for this legislation is the protection of vaccine production and research. I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of how we managed during the pandemic.

With the definition being stretched so far, will it cover every single premises with an Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act licence? That would mean a huge number of laboratories and institutions being protected, which would become almost unpoliceable. At a time when our criminal justice system is on its knees, further criminalising protests will only add additional pressure on those stretched services, whether that is the police, the law courts or the prison places that will be taken up as a result of these criminal sanctions.

I know that this is a difficult and controversial topic, but this is too significant a change to make through a statutory instrument or delegated legislation and to debate in this room today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and consider bringing something to the House, or at least allowing us to have a vote on this.

I believe that this measure runs counter to what we want from a democratic society. It is fair enough that we have developed a policy on phasing out animal testing, but that is being completely undermined by the draft regulations. If people no longer feel able to stand up and protest for what they believe in, where will the pressure come from for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to change their models?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.

The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.

We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.

[Olivia Blake]

Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.

Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.

To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere

“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.

That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.