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
On 14 January 2026, the House of Commons voted to approve the Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025. The regulations passed by 301 votes to 110. The vote confirms new rules that strengthen criminal penalties for protesters or others who interfere with the operation of critical national infrastructure, such as power stations, fuel pipelines, and transport networks. The regulations expand the practical reach of the Public Order Act 2023 by specifying which sites and systems count as "key national infrastructure" for the purposes of the interference offence. Anyone convicted under this provision faces a maximum sentence of twelve months in prison, a fine, or both. In practical terms, this means protest tactics such as blocking fuel terminals, disrupting rail lines, or occupying energy facilities carry heavier legal consequences than ordinary obstruction or trespass offences. The rules affect environmental and infrastructure protest movements in particular, while supporters argue they protect vital services that the public depends on daily. The vote divided sharply along party lines, with the Labour government and its Co-operative Party allies providing almost all of the 301 ayes. The Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, and most independents voted no, as did a small number of Labour and Labour-Co-operative members who broke with their own whip. Reform UK, despite its generally tough-on-crime positioning, also voted against. The Conservatives were notable chiefly for their near-total absence, with 114 of their MPs not voting and only two casting noes. The vote sits alongside a broader pattern of the current Parliament legislating on public order and sentencing, as seen in a series of related divisions on the Victims and Courts Bill in March 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support extending criminal offences to cover interference with key national infrastructure, strengthening powers to deter and prosecute disruptive protest activity
Voting No meant
Oppose these regulations, likely on grounds that they excessively restrict the right to protest or represent an overreach of state power against civil disobedience
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
58
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
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
Your 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