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

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. People often say that delegated legislation Committees are ones that Members loyally troop into between other meetings. They discuss uncontroversial things, and some hon. Members might even check their emails during the sitting—although that is probably not very courteous. There is no Division, and then Members leave.

When I was asked to serve on this Committee, I said yes thinking that it would be another uncontroversial matter, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, and having been contacted an hour or so ago by various campaign organisations and received their briefings, I am very concerned about the change this instrument makes. The oft-used phrase, “The House at its best,” is illustrated today by hon. Members fully engaging on this serious matter.

I echo much of what my hon. Friend said in relation to animal rights and the importance of the democratic right to protest. I am worried by this legislation; I am worried about where it ends. Hon. Members understand the current definition of key national infrastructure, but I think that many outside the Committee would be very surprised were the definition to be extended to pharmaceutical or testing facilities, and when the public find out about this, many will ask, “What next? Where does this stop?”

People are concerned about the authoritarian drift seen under both my own Government and the last. My hon. Friend made an important point: there are existing criminal laws that can deal with criminal behaviour. This move, which could result in peaceful protesters serving prison sentences of 12 months, worries me greatly.

I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats will divide the Committee, but even if there is a Division and the legislation passes, I would welcome—as would the public and hon. Members both on the Committee and outside it—the regulations being put before the House in the new year. There should be a full opportunity to debate and discuss the intended and unintended consequences, and an opportunity for every Member of the House of Commons to vote on the regulations.

I share the concerns that have been raised. Members have been involved in the campaign for Herbie’s law, and plenty of us, myself included, are concerned about animal rights. Regardless of people’s views on animal welfare and rights, a lot of members of the public will be concerned about what the legislation means for civil liberties, what the intended consequences are, and what the unintended effects may be.

As this Committee sits, a number of prisoners are on hunger strike in jails in our country. It feels as though there is an authoritarian drift. We have also seen the proscription of an organisation, which myself and others voted against, because we were concerned about where it would lead in practice, and its implications for civil liberties. We quite rightly speak out against infringements of civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries, and we speak out against draconian laws. Our ability do so, as a country and as a Government, will be severely weakened if we accidentally or otherwise start treading down that path ourselves.