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

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will commence by looking at some of the paperwork accompanying the draft regulations. The fact that the explanatory memorandum says that consultation “took place informally” highlights some of the challenges with this legislation. We know that when the Government have adhered to their manifesto they have done incredibly well, but these measures were not in the manifesto, and then they moved forward with an informal consultation. From what I can see, there does not seem to have been much scope behind that informality. It has meant that the public have not had the opportunity to engage. That is deeply regrettable, and I think that is why the Government are coming unstuck on this measure.

I really urge the Minister to reconsider, not least in order to do things in the right way, trusting the British public to be able to respond to these measures, but also clearly because of the distaste for this. I am really grateful to my constituents who have alerted me to this measure in their correspondence, and to the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the risk.

I disagree with Opposition Members: I do believe that the Public Order Act was a massive overreach of the state, and I have serious concerns about the suppression, as our party did in opposition. I have to question what changed, because clearly something has changed to trigger the Government into believing that that Act should go even further. I have deep concern about that, because at the heart of that legislation was suppressing the right to protest. That has serious consequences for our democracy, for this place and how it operates. We have been able to achieve so much because of protest in Parliament.

I stand for animal welfare protectors—for those people who have deep concern for the welfare of animals. I have certainly campaigned on many such issues; I have led some of the work on the forced swim test, which was referred to earlier. Our time today would be better spent working on how we could perhaps better legislate against that. I note the levels of distress to animals in a pointless exercise, but those licences will continue until 2028. That would have been time better spent.

We must also ask what the urgency is. We know that the average time for a pharmaceutical product to come online is 12 years. We are not talking about something urgent in that respect. It can take up to 30 years for a new pharmacological product to come onstream. The fact that we are talking about a protest over perhaps two or three days will hardly stall the process. The Government are making a mockery by saying that this is an urgent requirement, to the point that they could not even carry out a consultation, as they say in the documentation. It seems slightly dystopian, given that Lord Vallance came forward just last month with a faster phase-out of animal testing programme. For some time now we have been following the replacement, reduction and refinement strategy—the three Rs—to switch from animal-relevant science to ensuring that we use the new technologies available to reduce the use of animals in experimentation. The faster we do that, the better. Again, that is a better use of Government resource.

I also want to raise with the Minister the issue of protesting outside such infrastructure. Supposing the workers within voted for industrial action, and supposing that they chose to strike outside that infrastructure, would that also be unlawful under the Act? Could trade unionists end up with a sentence of perhaps 12 months because they were standing up for their own rights? Of course, the legislation does not state the implications of that. I think it is badly written legislation and should be withdrawn on those grounds as well.

We have existing law to protect against criminal damage, against harassment, against threats and intimidation, against violence, against trespass and against blocking the highway. We also have health and safety legislation. I have to ask the Minister: what is the purpose of this legislation, if we already have that whole framework? Will it be targeted at the peaceful protester who is holding up a sign with a picture of a bunny rabbit on it, saying, “Don’t inject disease into this animal”? If that is where we have got to, it is a really sad day for this Government. Quite frankly, I believe that we are better than that. It is a massive overreach of the state.

I also want to raise my significant concern about the implications for the criminal justice system. I know from informal discussions with the police during the passing of the 2023 Act that they were deeply concerned about the overreach of the state. They prefer fostering a cordial relationship with protesters, because it helps them in their work and in being able to keep order. Having to move into the space of criminality is an overreach. Our prisons, as we hear daily from the Government, are full to the brim. Why are we introducing more legislation to put people behind bars? There seems to be a lack of join-up between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need police officers on our streets as well.

I really do urge the Government to withdraw this measure. If they do so, there will be no need to bring it to the Floor of the House, but we should at least give this House an opportunity to vote these measures down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.

I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.

As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.

It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.

Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.

There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.

As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.