A dark day for the right to protest as draconian legislation passes through the Lords

Just a matter of minutes ago the House of Lords voted not to block the Government’s absurd changes to the Public Order Act (2023)

Despite powerful speeches, sustained public pressure, and serious concerns raised by peers across the House, the regulations were approved.

This is a dark day for the right to peaceful protest in the UK.

By expanding the definition of “key national infrastructure” to include animal testing facilities, the government has taken another significant step towards criminalising dissent and shielding controversial private industries from public scrutiny.

But this is not the end of the fight.

And it is not where resistance stops.

What the vote means

The regulations amend the Public Order Act 2023 so that animal testing sites licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are treated as key national infrastructure.

This means protest activity that is judged to interfere with the operation of these sites can now carry criminal penalties of up to 12 months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both.

Animal testing facilities are not roads, power stations, or energy networks.

Designating them as key national infrastructure represents a profound expansion of state power. It risks criminalising peaceful protest and insulating a highly controversial industry from public accountability.

Thank you for pushing back

Over the past few months, Protect the Wild supporters have shown what collective resistance looks like.

Together, you have:

• sent more than 40,000 emails to MPs

• sent over 22,000 emails to members of the House of Lords

• taken to the streets for two days of action in Westminster

• ensured peers were properly briefed on the dangers of these regulations

Behind the scenes, we worked closely with peers and legal experts to make sure these concerns were fully understood and placed firmly on the parliamentary record.

That pressure mattered.

It forced a real debate.
It exposed the scale of opposition.
It made clear that these powers were not granted quietly or without challenge.

We have demonstrated that we will not go down without a fight.

The fatal motion and why it mattered

Baroness Natalie Bennett of Manor Castle tabled a fatal motion calling on the House of Lords to reject the regulations outright. That alone deserves recognition.

Her motion set out, clearly and unambiguously, that the regulations:

• represent a serious case of legislative overreach

• stretch the definition of key national infrastructure beyond any reasonable meaning

• provide no evidence that existing police powers are insufficient

• further restrict the right to peaceful protest

• are being rushed through without meaningful steps to end animal testing

Although the motion was ultimately not passed, it was far from symbolic.

It forced scrutiny.
It placed serious legal and democratic concerns firmly on the parliamentary record.
And it helped lay the groundwork for the next phase of resistance.

We are grateful to Baroness Natalie Bennett for tabling the motion, and to the peers who spoke out so powerfully in support this afternoon.

I’ve also included a brilliant clip below of Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat) saying it how it is. She later goes on to warn that this law change is a dangerous step towards undermining the right to protest, powerfully stating:

“In the end, whether your Lordships vote for this fatal motion or not depends on whether your Lordships feel it matters that the Government takes us for fools — or whether legislation passed in your Lordships’ House should say what it means.”

Later on in the debate Baroness Grender (Liberal Democract) summed it up perfectly: “This is an outrageous expansion of state power that avoids meaningful public consultation and accountability”

Despite the clear legislative overreach and misuse of parliamentary process, peers ultimately voted in favour of the amendment to the Public Order Act (2023) to classify animal testing sites as “key national infrastructure”.

---

The fight continues through the courts

Crucially, today’s vote does not bring this challenge to an end.

Lawyers for Animals, a new specialist charity focused on using the law to protect animals and those who speak up for them, has already taken decisive action.

They have sent a Pre-Action Protocol letter to the government and are now pursuing a judicial review of these regulations.

Protect the Wild fully backs this legal challenge.

What is a judicial review and why it matters

A judicial review is a legal process in which the courts examine whether the government has acted lawfully when making a decision.

It looks at whether:

• ministers acted within their legal powers

• the decision was supported by evidence

• proper consultation and reasoning took place

• fundamental rights, including the right to protest, were unlawfully restricted

If the court finds the regulations are unlawful, it can quash them, regardless of the parliamentary vote.

Judicial review is one of the most important safeguards against government overreach.

It is now where this fight must be taken.

Why we are asking you to donate

Legal challenges of this scale are complex and expensive. The government has vast resources and will defend these regulations aggressively.

That is why a CrowdJustice fundraiser has been set up to support this judicial review.

Every donation helps fund:

• specialist legal counsel

• court fees and procedural costs

• the work needed to challenge these powers properly and effectively

This case matters far beyond animal testing.

It is about whether protest can be redefined as a threat rather than a democratic right. It is about whether the law can be bent to protect powerful industries from challenge. It is about whether future movements will still be able to speak out.

If you believe protest rights matter, if you believe animal testing must not be placed beyond challenge, and if you believe this decision must not go unchallenged, please support this legal action.

This is not over.
The fight has simply moved to the courts.