Asked by: Ruth Jones (Labour - Newport West and Islwyn)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of The Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the ability of (a) students and (b) academics to protest the use of animals in scientific research by universities.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
On Thursday 27 November 2025, the Home Office laid an affirmative Statutory Instrument in Parliament to amend Section 7 and Section 8 of the Public Order Act 2023. This will amend the list of key national infrastructure within Section 7 of the Act, to add the Life Sciences sector and define the Life Sciences sector in Section 8 of the Act.
The definition of ‘Life Sciences sector’ for the purpose of this legislation to be added to Section 8 of the Act is: “infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research, or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products; or which is used in connection to activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986”.
Under Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a person commits an offence if:
The amendment is designed to address only certain behaviours impacting the Life Sciences sector. It does not ban protests. It specifically targets deliberate or reckless interference with infrastructure within the Life Sciences sector, that could undermine our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic.
Whether an activity meets the criminal threshold within Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 will be fact specific and is an operational matter for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, who are all operationally independent from the government.
Asked by: Ruth Jones (Labour - Newport West and Islwyn)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of The Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the ability of the public to protest the use of beagles in scientific research.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
On Thursday 27 November 2025, the Home Office laid an affirmative Statutory Instrument in Parliament to amend Section 7 and Section 8 of the Public Order Act 2023. This will amend the list of key national infrastructure within Section 7 of the Act, to add the Life Sciences sector and define the Life Sciences sector in Section 8 of the Act.
Under Section 7 of the Act, a person commits an offence if:
The amendment is designed to address only certain behaviours impacting the Life Sciences sector. It does not ban protests. It specifically targets deliberate or reckless interference with infrastructure within the Life Sciences sector, that could undermine our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic.
Whether an activity, online or otherwise, meets the criminal threshold within Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 will be fact specific and is an operational matter for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, who are all operationally independent from the government.
Asked by: Jeremy Hunt (Conservative - Godalming and Ash)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to (a) prioritise research into pancreatic cancer and (b) encourage innovations in earlier diagnosis.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and in 2024/25, spent £141.6 million on cancer research, signalling its high priority. This includes studies that focus specifically on pancreatic cancer as well as studies that are relevant to or include pancreatic cancer. For example, between the 2020/21 to 2024/25 financial years, the NIHR committed £1.5 million to specific pancreatic cancer studies.
One instance of this is ongoing research funded by the NIHR which aims into improve the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by utilising artificial intelligence as well as reducing instances of missed cancer.
The NIHR’s wider investments in research infrastructure, including facilities, services, and the research workforce, supported the delivery of 160 pancreatic cancer research studies and enabled over 8,200 people to participate in potentially life-changing research during this time period. This includes support for the PemOla trial, which is the first to explore using precision immunotherapies to treat pancreatic cancer.
The Office for Life Sciences’ Cancer Healthcare Goals programme aims to maximise and direct global industrial investment for the development and acceleration of new cancer diagnostic and therapeutic technologies and devices in the United Kingdom through: providing research investments to support the development of innovations in the early stages of the development pathway and; supporting industry to accelerate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic technologies and devices in the latter stages of development into the National Health Service.
The programme launched the £10.9 million NIHR i4i Cancer Healthcare Goals: Early Cancer Diagnosis Clinical Validation and Evaluation Call. This has funded six projects which are developing breakthrough technologies that can increase the proportion of cancers which are detected earlier in the disease course and/or target health inequalities in cancer diagnosis.
This includes the miONCO-Dx multi-cancer early detection test, developed by XGenera, which can identify 12 of the most lethal and common cancers, including pancreatic cancer, at even the earliest stages from just 100 microlitres of blood. This technology is currently testing the diagnostic test accuracy on over 20,000 patient samples with promising early results.
The NIHR continues to encourage and welcome high quality funding applications into pancreatic cancer.
Asked by: Ian Roome (Liberal Democrat - North Devon)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Public Order Act and the proposed designation of “life sciences” as key national infrastructure, what evidence was used to conclude that existing police powers are inadequate to address disruptive protest activity affecting life sciences sites, including animal research and testing facilities.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
On Thursday 27 November 2025, the Home Office laid an affirmative Statutory Instrument in Parliament to amend Section 7 and Section 8 of the Public Order Act 2023. This will amend the list of key national infrastructure within Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the Life Sciences sector and define the Life Sciences sector in Section 8 of the Act.
To ensure these powers are workable and proportionate, the Home Office undertook targeted engagement with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Office for Life Sciences as the relevant government unit between the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and authorities with executive responsibility in their respective fields. This engagement provided a broad and comprehensive understanding of the challenges being managed by the Life Sciences Sector.
The government remains committed to safeguarding the right to peaceful protest while ensuring that public order and safety are maintained. The amendments to the Public Order Act 2023 reflect the balance between these priorities, responding directly to the evidence gathered from those responsible for maintaining public safety and order.
Asked by: Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to produce a strategy or consultation on the potential of creating a sovereign supply of medical isotopes to ensure cancer patients receive the treatment they require.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Medical radioisotopes can be produced in different ways, and the United Kingdom has a comprehensive network of cyclotrons used for radioisotope manufacture. These tend to be placed close to the point of use due to the short half-life of these products. The radioisotopes manufactured in these cyclotrons are not suitable for all uses, and so hospitals and trusts in England use a significant number of isotopes manufactured in research reactors. There are currently no reactors in the UK that manufacture medical isotopes, all of these are therefore imported.
The Government does not have any current plans to produce a strategy or to consult on the potential for further domestic medical radioisotope manufacture. However, the Government prioritises the reliable supply of medicines, including the supply of medical radioisotopes for critical services. The Government therefore offers support for private investors and developers to increase manufacture capacity.
The Government has made up to £520 million available through the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund to support UK manufacture of medicine and medical technology products. Applications looking to establish, expand, or improve the UK-based manufacture of medical radioisotopes for diagnostic or therapeutic applications can apply to this fund.
The Government also recently announced a £54 million funding package for eight innovative research and development projects, including £9.9 million earmarked for Project Alpha 10.6 to explore how to make medical treatments from legacy nuclear material, something that could unlock the UK’s potential to develop promising new cancer therapies.
Asked by: Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential of developing a medical isotope production capability to ensure a sovereign domestic supply of medical isotopes.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Medical radioisotopes can be produced in different ways, and the United Kingdom has a comprehensive network of cyclotrons used for radioisotope manufacture. These tend to be placed close to the point of use due to the short half-life of these products. The radioisotopes manufactured in these cyclotrons are not suitable for all uses, and so hospitals and trusts in England use a significant number of isotopes manufactured in research reactors. There are currently no reactors in the UK that manufacture medical isotopes, all of these are therefore imported.
The Government does not have any current plans to produce a strategy or to consult on the potential for further domestic medical radioisotope manufacture. However, the Government prioritises the reliable supply of medicines, including the supply of medical radioisotopes for critical services. The Government therefore offers support for private investors and developers to increase manufacture capacity.
The Government has made up to £520 million available through the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund to support UK manufacture of medicine and medical technology products. Applications looking to establish, expand, or improve the UK-based manufacture of medical radioisotopes for diagnostic or therapeutic applications can apply to this fund.
The Government also recently announced a £54 million funding package for eight innovative research and development projects, including £9.9 million earmarked for Project Alpha 10.6 to explore how to make medical treatments from legacy nuclear material, something that could unlock the UK’s potential to develop promising new cancer therapies.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of NHS spending on pharmaceutical products on levels of NHS staffing, equipment and activity in the context of the UK-US trade deal.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Every patient deserves access to the best possible treatment. By increasing the standard National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold, we are increasing the value that we place on innovations that deliver improvements to patient health. Alongside the changes that we announced in the Life Sciences Sector Plan this will increase both the speed and breadth of patient access to innovative medicines and encourage growth in United Kingdom based clinical trials. This is supported by confirmation that, thanks to strong UK support for innovation, the UK has secured mitigations under the United States of America’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ drug pricing initiative.
This deal will also benefit our life sciences sector, driving jobs, investment, and growth. We have secured a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the UK’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology.
The move has secured the confidence of the pharmaceutical industry that the UK is a top destination for investment and growth, with major firms like Moderna, Prologis, and BioNTech investing billions here, and renewed confidence in the UK.
Costs will start smaller but will increase over time as NICE approves more life improving and lifesaving medicines. Total costs over the spending review period are expected to be approximately £1 billion. But the final costs will depend on which medicines NICE decides to approve and the actual uptake of these.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of NHS spending on pharmaceutical products on the economy in the context of the UK-US trade deal.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Every patient deserves access to the best possible treatment. By increasing the standard National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold, we are increasing the value that we place on innovations that deliver improvements to patient health. Alongside the changes that we announced in the Life Sciences Sector Plan this will increase both the speed and breadth of patient access to innovative medicines and encourage growth in United Kingdom based clinical trials. This is supported by confirmation that, thanks to strong UK support for innovation, the UK has secured mitigations under the United States of America’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ drug pricing initiative.
This deal will also benefit our life sciences sector, driving jobs, investment, and growth. We have secured a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the UK’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology.
The move has secured the confidence of the pharmaceutical industry that the UK is a top destination for investment and growth, with major firms like Moderna, Prologis, and BioNTech investing billions here, and renewed confidence in the UK.
Costs will start smaller but will increase over time as NICE approves more life improving and lifesaving medicines. Total costs over the spending review period are expected to be approximately £1 billion. But the final costs will depend on which medicines NICE decides to approve and the actual uptake of these.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of NHS spending on pharmaceutical products on patients in the context of the UK-US trade deal.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Every patient deserves access to the best possible treatment. By increasing the standard National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold, we are increasing the value that we place on innovations that deliver improvements to patient health. Alongside the changes that we announced in the Life Sciences Sector Plan this will increase both the speed and breadth of patient access to innovative medicines and encourage growth in United Kingdom based clinical trials. This is supported by confirmation that, thanks to strong UK support for innovation, the UK has secured mitigations under the United States of America’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ drug pricing initiative.
This deal will also benefit our life sciences sector, driving jobs, investment, and growth. We have secured a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the UK’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology.
The move has secured the confidence of the pharmaceutical industry that the UK is a top destination for investment and growth, with major firms like Moderna, Prologis, and BioNTech investing billions here, and renewed confidence in the UK.
Costs will start smaller but will increase over time as NICE approves more life improving and lifesaving medicines. Total costs over the spending review period are expected to be approximately £1 billion. But the final costs will depend on which medicines NICE decides to approve and the actual uptake of these.
Asked by: Joe Robertson (Conservative - Isle of Wight East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of regional variation in access to NICE-approved medicines across Integrated Care Systems.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
No assessment has been made by my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on adoption of innovative medicines in local formularies states that once a NICE technology appraisal recommends a medicine, it must be included in a local formulary within 90 days, providing it is clinically appropriate and relevant to the services provided by the organisation, or 30 days for Early Access to Medicines Scheme medicines. This NICE guidance is available at the following link:
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mpg1/chapter/Recommendations#local-formulary-scope
Local formularies exist at various levels of the health service, but most frequently appear at integrated care board (ICB) level. It is the responsibility of local medicines optimisation teams and formulary committees to ensure they are meeting these targets.
At a national level, the Innovation Scorecard and Estimates Report is a publication which reports on the use of medicines and medicine groupings in the National Health Service in England, which have been positively appraised by NICE. It can be used by local NHS organisations to monitor progress in implementing NICE Technology Appraisal recommendations. Further information on the Innovation Scorecard and Estimates Report is available at the following link:
In line with commitments made in 2024 Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access, and Growth, NHS England, NICE, and the NHS Business Services Authority are further developing the Innovation Scorecard and Estimates Report to better track variation in the uptake of NICE recommended medicines between ICBs.
The 10-Year Health Plan and Life Sciences Sector Plan set out a commitment to move to a Single National Formulary for medicines within the next two years. The overall aim of the Single National Formulary will be to drive rapid and equitable adoption of clinically- and cost-effective innovations.