Labour MPs are among those planning to vote against a move to restrict protest outside animal breeding and testing facilities by reclassifying them as “key national infrastructure”, amid fresh concerns about the criminalisation of peaceful protest.
The government proposal to amend the Public Order Act 2023 using a statutory instrument (SI) has been criticised by MPs and campaigners for using secondary legislation to expand police powers, meaning there is little parliamentary scrutiny and no public consultation. The Guardian understands about 50 MPs in total plan to oppose the amendment in Wednesday’s vote.
Introduced by the policing minister, Sarah Jones, in November, the SI classifies life science sites, including animal testing labs and suppliers, as key infrastructure, giving police broad powers against protesters who “deliberately or recklessly” disrupt them, with penalties of up to 12 months’ imprisonment or a fine. This includes online campaigns.
Jones defended the measure in a delegated legislation committee meeting last month, arguing that recent protests targeting life sciences had threatened the UK’s ability to produce vaccines and medicines, and disrupted supply chains vital to national health.
SIs allow ministers to amend laws without introducing a new bill. Affirmative SIs need Commons and Lords approval, but parliament can only approve or reject them, restricting debate. While usually uncontroversial, this proposal faces strong opposition, with MPs warning of an “authoritarian drift.”
The Labour MPs Rachael Maskell and Neil Duncan-Jordan warned in the committee that lawful protest could be suppressed, noting that police already had extensive powers to manage disruptions. Maskell said: “Will it be targeted at the peaceful protester who is holding up a sign with a picture of a bunny rabbit on it, saying: ‘Don’t inject disease into this animal’?” Duncan-Jordan highlighted the “profound implications” for civil liberties, saying life science facilities did not meet “any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure”.
Animal rights campaigners argue the amendment is aimed at suppressing effective, legal protest. A letter to the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, signed by Chris Packham, Protect the Wild and Animal Rising among others, said the government’s plan could erode public trust: “Peaceful protest against animal testing has a long and legitimate history, and curtailing it through expansive powers is neither necessary nor proportionate.”
A spokesperson from Camp Beagle, a protest camp outside MBR Acres, a dog breeding facility in Cambridgeshire, said: “This law isn’t being brought in because we’ve done anything wrong, but because we’re having an impact. Animal testing is usually hidden from public view, but our constant presence has helped build fast-growing public opposition, that’s why the government wants draconian laws to stop protest.”
In November last year, the government launched its strategy to phase out animal testing, but the Protect the Wild founder, Rob Pownall, said that restricting protest while claiming to support reform undermined progress on the issue by “shielding cruelty from scrutiny by criminalising the public for demanding change”.
The row underscores rising cross-party concern over protest, policing and civil liberties, with the Labour MP John McDonnell calling for full debate, saying the proposal set a dangerous precedent and was a “slippery slope”.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democratic society; people in this country will always be able to freely express their views.
“This change is about providing police with powers to respond proportionately to disruptive protest activity that undermines our nation’s health.”
