New law is draconian and unlawful
Peaceful protest against animal research and breeding facilities risks being criminalised after amendments to the Public Order Act 2023 were passed by a vote in the House of Lords.
We continue to believe that this move is draconian, unnecessary and almost certainly unlawful.
The amendments, which reclassify ‘life sciences infrastructure’ (including animal research and breeding facilities) as ‘key national infrastructure’, will now become law on Wednesday 11 February, severely limiting the ability of citizens to carry out protests against facilities in which animals are subjected to the cruelty of animal testing or bred for that purpose. This definition goes much too far, as animal research cannot reasonably be considered critical infrastructure.
Such protests can now be penalised with up to 12 months’ imprisonment and unlimited fines.
The changes were made by Statutory Instrument (SI), which is a way that governments can update or amend the details of existing UK law. It is a process which involves very limited debate and is intended for specific changes to the detail of laws rather than for substantial changes to their impact and intended purpose.
The SI was voted through with no further debate after the defeat of the Fatal Motion tabled by Green Party peer Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, which would have blocked the changes.
Even though Parliament’s approval of these changes to protest laws is not surprising, as almost all changes made by SI are approved, the debate by MPs in the lead up to the vote showed a clear concern and opposition in Parliament. This has been shared by animal protection and human rights organisations, and members of the public.
Baroness Bennett had tabled a Fatal motion to stop the new law after it had been passed by the House of Commons, by 301 votes to 110, on Wednesday 14th January. The Fatal Motion was defeated by 295 votes to 62, but before that, a number of Peers also raised strong concerns about the changes, asking for clarity on what activities will be criminalised and evidence that existing laws are not adequate. There were also several concerns that the changes are too significant to be passed by a Statutory Instrument rather than allowing a full process of Parliamentary law-making, with proper debate.
The current list of key national infrastructure facilities includes those which support road, rail and air transport, harbours, the exploration, production and transportation of oil and gas, onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing.
Adding life sciences infrastructure to this list is clearly wrong, and will restrict fundamental rights to protest which are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government had given two reasons for this change: ability to cope with a pandemic, and the need to protect Life Sciences companies. However, there does not appear to be any evidence that protesters interfered in any way with the development of Coronavirus vaccines, and pharmaceutical companies which have threatened to relocate away from the UK have said that their concerns are based on regulatory or economic pressures, not protests.
Existing police powers already address protests, and there is no evidence that these are inadequate. In developing these proposals, there was no consultation with animal protection or civil liberties organisations, despite this being an area where surveys demonstrate strong public interest.
Our Head of Public Affairs, Dylan Underhill, said: “We believe these regulations to be illiberal, draconian, unnecessary, and almost certainly unlawful. Criminalising peaceful protest against experiments on animals undermines fundamental freedoms and public accountability, and is an unjustified attack on democratic rights.
“Whilst we appreciate the efforts of Peers to stop these amendments becoming law and to scrutinise the detail of the measures, we remain deeply disappointed and angry that the government has pursued these highly consequential changes through a process which does not allow for substantive Parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.
“These amendments contravene fundamental rights to protest that are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and risk setting a dangerous precedent towards an ever-growing restriction of peaceful protest.”
