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

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

On 4 February 2026, the House of Lords is due to consider a motion that the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 be approved. At the same time, a motion in the name of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) to reject the regulations will be debated. It states:

[…] this House declines to approve the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the basis that they are legislative overreach; they extend the definition of “critical national infrastructure” beyond its appropriate meaning; the practical need for such an extension has not been adequately justified; they represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest; and sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken.

1. What would the regulations do?

The draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 were laid before both Houses of Parliament on 27 November 2025.^[1] The regulations seek to amend existing legislation to address protest activity directed at the UK’s life sciences sector. Specifically, they would amend the Public Order Act 2023 to designate the life sciences sector as key national infrastructure, extending the offence in section 7 of the act to make powers available to the police to take action against disruptive protest activity.^[2]

Under the provisions of section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a person commits an offence if they engage in conduct that interferes with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales, and they either intend to cause such interference or are reckless as to whether it will occur.

The government argues that the life sciences sector is being targeted by protestors who oppose current clinical research methods. This includes repeated obstruction of access to and from essential sites, which the government contends “poses a risk to public safety and impedes operations”.^[3] The government argues that existing powers available to the police have proven inadequate in effectively managing this ongoing disruptive activity.

The government contends that extending the provisions in section 7 to tackle activity targeting the life sciences sector is “necessary to protect the UK’s ability to respond to a medical crisis, such as a pandemic, in line with requirements under the National Risk Register, and ability to produce vaccines”.^[4] Ministers argue there is “sufficient evidence” to suggest that if protest activity is not addressed it may give rise to a “wider retreat of companies across the life sciences sector from UK operations”. The government contends that losing this capability would damage national security, disrupt supply chains and erode confidence in the UK as a central hub for the life sciences industry.

For the purposes of the regulations, life sciences infrastructure is defined as infrastructure:

(a) the primary purpose of which is facilitating:

(i) pharmaceutical research or development, or;

(ii) the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products for medical use, or

(b) used for or in connection with activities authorised by a licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

As an instrument laid under the affirmative procedure, the regulations must be approved by a resolution in both Houses before they can become law.

2. Parliamentary consideration of the regulations

2.1 Reports from parliamentary committees

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered the regulations and identified them as an “instrument of interest”.^[5] The committee noted the effect of the instrument, and said:

Sectors currently listed as key national infrastructure are: transport facilities, such as roads, rail and air transport and harbours; energy-related activities such as onshore oil and gas exploration and electricity generation and distribution; and newspaper printing. The changes would add two types of life science activity: pharmaceutical research and development; and animal research and testing. In response to our questions, the Home Office stressed that animal testing was included because it is currently “still required for the development of medicines and pandemic preparedness”, and is therefore “critical to protecting public health”. The Home Office noted that a strategy on ‘Replacing animals in science’ is being developed […] We commend the Home Office on the well-drafted and informative explanatory material it provided alongside these draft regulations.^[6]

The instrument was not drawn to the special attention of either House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

2.2 Debate of the regulations in the House of Commons

The House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee debated the regulations on 17 December 2025.^[7]

Speaking to the purpose of the regulations, policing minister Sarah Jones reiterated the government’s perspective that they were necessary to protect the UK’s life sciences sector:

The government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150bn in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the Covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.

Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.^[8]

She added:

Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives.^[9]

She also noted the new government strategy published in November 2025 to replace animals in scientific testing with other alternatives.^[10]

Responding for the Conservative Party, shadow minister Matt Vickers noted the “strong views” which had been expressed by campaigners ahead of the debate (see section 3 on external reaction) and said that animal testing will always be an “emotive topic”.^[11] He said that finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order was complex, and that the continued protests around animal testing sites and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector posed “difficult questions”. In that context, Mr Vickers pressed the minister for further detail on several areas:

[…] although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the government. Accordingly, will the minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently?

The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the government about the extent to which that could happen.^[12]

For the Liberal Democrats, Max Wilkinson said that the UK life sciences sector was “vital to our national wellbeing”, from lifesaving research to pandemic preparedness, and it must be protected.^[13] However, he was highly critical of the regulations, stating that such “misguided and misdirected” efforts to safeguard the life sciences sector risked further undermining fundamental democratic freedoms.

During the debate, concerns were raised about several issues alongside balancing the need to protect the right to protest versus the ability of the life sciences sector to function. They included the transparency about what activities are currently occurring at these sites, their designation as key national infrastructure, and the related concern that peaceful protest could be turned into a criminal offence.^[14] Several members also raised objections to the practice of animal testing itself and called for increasing progress towards it being discontinued rather than action being taken against protest activity.

In her closing remarks, Ms Jones addressed the issue of animal testing directly, noting and endorsing the restrictions which already exist on such practices, including its prohibition by law if there are other alternatives available. However, she contended that at present “the reality […] is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines”. She added:

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.^[15]

On the issue of peaceful protest, and the thresholds for police action, the minister said:

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.^[16]

At the end of the debate the committee divided, and the motion that it had considered the regulations was passed by 10 votes to two.^[17] A subsequent motion to approve the regulations was voted on in the House of Commons on 14 January 2026, where it was approved by 301 votes to 110.^[18]

3. External reaction to the proposals

Several protest and animal rights groups have voiced concern about the changes proposed by the regulations. Kate Salmon, campaign manager at Naturewatch Foundation, said the regulations risked criminalising peaceful protesters for “exercising their right to speak out on topics they believe in”.^[19] Protect the Wild also called the regulations “unjustified and dangerous overreach” and raised the question of transparency:

Animal testing facilities are not “key national infrastructure,” and existing laws already give police ample powers to deal with harassment, intimidation, or criminal damage. This move appears designed to shield controversial private industries from public scrutiny at the very moment the government claims it wants greater transparency and a future phase-out of animal testing.^[20]

Human Rights Watch said that the regulations were the latest in a series of measures which have “steadily narrowed space for peaceful protest in the UK”.^[21] Cruelty Free International said that there was “no evidence” existing police powers were inadequate to address protest-related concerns and argued there had been no consultation with animal protection or civil liberties organisations.^[22]

---

Image by HM Government.