Lord Trees (CB)

My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and, more pertinent to this debate, a former named veterinarian—more than 30 years ago, I stress—to a university animal unit. I realise that this issue is contentious and emotive, and I understand people’s concerns. However, with respect, I note that this is not the place to debate the provision and use of animals in research; it is about balancing free speech and the right to protest with the lawful pursuit of highly regulated legal activities of great benefit to humans and animals. Therefore, I speak in support of these regulations and to oppose the fatal amendment. The fatal amendment speaks of “legislative overreach” and suggests that it extends “critical national infra- structure” beyond its meaning. I will challenge that. The Public Order Act allows the Secretary of State to make different provision for different purposes—that was agreed by Parliament in the passing of that Act. Our biosecurity is more vulnerable than ever. We are threatened by potential epidemic or pandemic outbreaks of infectious disease in either humans or animals; I point out that foot and mouth disease, for example, is on the National Risk Register. Whether a disease outbreak occurs spontaneously or by bioterrorism—let us not forget that risk—it presents a huge threat to our food security, our animal health, our human health and the economy. I am satisfied, and indeed heartened, to see that life science establishments—which help us detect, manage or prevent those very serious events that I have mentioned—are regarded as critical national infrastructure. The fatal amendment asserts that there is a lack of justification for the regulations and that they will facilitate “a further restriction on the … right to peaceful protest”. However, this SI does not change or extend any sanctions or restrictions already included in the Public Order Act 2023; it simply adds another type of infrastructure. I also note that the police believe that the current powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient in this case. I cannot see that peaceful protest is in any way prevented but I am aware that protest actions in several sites have included things like spike devices being hurled into facilities to damage vehicles and puncture tyres, spray painting the homes of animal care staff, other harassments, and personal threats and criminal damage, often by masked individuals, which go way beyond peaceful protest and are clearly designed to close down facilities. As someone who has known first-hand the exemplary skill and care with which animal technicians treat the animals they look after in research establishments, I am appalled that staff are treated by some demonstrators so nastily that they are frightened to go to work. In the UK, labs that might use animals, whether for life science, medical or veterinary research, and the facilities that support those labs, are highly regulated and carry out legal activities of incredible value to human and animal health and welfare.