A significant cross-party group of MPs, including dozens from the Labour Party, is preparing to oppose a controversial government move to restrict protests outside animal breeding and testing facilities. The proposal, which will be voted on in the House of Commons on Wednesday, seeks to reclassify life science sites as "key national infrastructure", granting police sweeping new powers.
Expanded Police Powers and Limited Scrutiny
The change is being introduced via a statutory instrument (SI) to amend the Public Order Act 2023. This method of lawmaking, which allows ministers to alter legislation without a new bill, has drawn criticism for its lack of parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation. The SI, introduced by Policing Minister Sarah Jones in November, would make it an offence for protesters to "deliberately or recklessly" disrupt sites such as animal testing labs and their suppliers.
Penalties could include up to 12 months in prison or a fine, with the broad powers also applying to online campaigns. Jones defended the measure, arguing that recent protests have threatened the UK's vaccine and medicine production and disrupted vital health supply chains.
A Threat to Peaceful Protest and Civil Liberties
Opposition MPs and campaigners warn the move represents an "authoritarian drift" and poses a grave threat to lawful protest. Labour MP Rachael Maskell questioned in a committee meeting whether a peaceful protester holding a sign with a picture of a rabbit could be targeted. Her colleague, Neil Duncan-Jordan, highlighted the "profound implications" for civil liberties, stating that life science facilities do not meet "any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure".
Animal rights campaigners argue the amendment is a direct attempt to suppress effective, legal activism. A coalition including Chris Packham, Protect the Wild, and Animal Rising has written to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, warning the plan could erode public trust. They state that "peaceful protest against animal testing has a long and legitimate history" and that curtailing it is disproportionate.
Shielding Cruelty from Scrutiny?
A spokesperson for Camp Beagle, the protest camp outside the MBR Acres dog breeding facility in Cambridgeshire, said the law was being introduced not because protesters had done anything wrong, but because their constant presence was having an impact. "Animal testing is usually hidden from public view, but our constant presence has helped build fast-growing public opposition," they stated.
The row underscores a growing tension between government policy and protest rights. Despite launching a strategy to phase out animal testing last November, critics like Rob Pownall of Protect the Wild accuse the government of hypocrisy, saying it is "shielding cruelty from scrutiny by criminalising the public for demanding change". With Labour's John McDonnell warning of a "dangerous precedent" and a "slippery slope", Wednesday's vote is set to be a key test for civil liberties in the UK.
A Home Office spokesperson reiterated that peaceful protest is a fundamental part of democracy, but said the change was about providing police with powers to respond proportionately to disruptive activity that undermines the nation's health.
