Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
301Ayes
110Noes
Carried · majority 191 · Government won239 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 301 · No 110 · DNV 239 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament approved regulations on 14 January 2026 extending the Public Order Act 2023 to cover interference with key national infrastructure, passing by 301 votes to 110. The regulations bring energy, transport, water, and similar networks within the scope of criminal offences and police powers that already existed under the 2023 Act for other forms of disruptive protest activity. The vote matters because it widens the legal framework that authorities can use to prosecute and deter protest activity that disrupts critical services. Anyone who interferes with the operation of key national infrastructure now faces offences under the expanded Act, meaning police have additional powers to act against protests targeting sites such as oil terminals, railway lines, or water treatment facilities. The change affects both protest groups that use infrastructure disruption as a tactic and the organisations responsible for running those networks. The government won comfortably with Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs providing the bulk of the 301 ayes. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously against, as did the Greens, Plaid Cymru, and seven independents. Reform UK sent five MPs through the no lobby, an unusual alignment with civil liberties opponents of the measure. The Conservatives, who introduced the original Public Order Act 2023, had 114 members absent with no vote recorded and only 2 voting no, meaning the party that created the underlying legislation largely sat the vote out. Twenty-six Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs also voted no, representing a modest rebellion against the government position.
Voting Aye meant
Support extending Public Order Act offences to cover interference with key national infrastructure, backing tougher enforcement against disruptive protest
Voting No meant
Oppose the expansion of Public Order Act powers to national infrastructure, citing concerns about civil liberties or the breadth of protest restrictions
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
266
24
71
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
2
114
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
2
11
Independent
—
0
8
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Supports adding life sciences to key national infrastructure to protect pandemic preparedness and sovereign capability to produce vaccines, while defending the right to peaceful protest.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,153 words) →
Questions whether the regulations are proportionate, whether existing powers are truly insufficient, and seeks evidence of specific protests that would be newly addressed.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (961 words) →
Opposed; argues the measure unjustifiably restricts protest on animal testing, which is not true key national infrastructure, and calls for full House debate rather than delegated legislation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,496 words) →
Strongly opposed; views the measure as an authoritarian expansion of protest restrictions that goes beyond what is needed and continues the troubling trajectory of the 2023 Act.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (289 words) →
Opposed; expresses concern about authoritarian drift, questions why peaceful protesters should face 12-month jail sentences, and calls for full House debate in the new year.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (688 words) →
Opposed; as a founder of FRAME and animal welfare advocate, argues that life sciences is not truly national infrastructure and the measure undermines progress toward validated alternatives to animal testing.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (772 words) →
Opposed; as a biomedical scientist, questions the definition of key national infrastructure and argues this is too significant a change to make via delegated legislation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,200 words) →
Opposed; warns of a slippery slope in restricting protests, cites the example of peaceful Heathrow protesters now at risk of 12-month sentences, and urges withdrawal for full House debate.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (787 words) →
Opposed; criticises informal consultation, questions the urgency given pharmaceutical timelines, and warns of unintended consequences for trade union industrial action.Labour/Co-op · Voted no · Read full speech (1,465 words) →
Opposed; argues animal testing facilities do not meet any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure and existing laws already provide robust protection.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (495 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0