Right To Protest - New Law
After four and a half years of Camp Beagle legally campaigning to stop the breeding of beagles at MBR Acres, and successfully raising public outcry and political pressure, the Government has decided to change the law to criminalise protesting against animal testing. This marks a significant escalation in the Government’s response to peaceful protest.
The Government first attempted to protect MBR Acres specifically by trying to classify it as a “national security centre” for pandemic planning, and therefore as “critical national infrastructure”. However, this failed when officials realised that beagles were not used at all during the Covid pandemic, as confirmed by the Minister on 17th December.
Announcement of the POA amendment
As a result, on 27th November 2025 the Secretary of State presented a statutory instrument to amend the Public Order Act 2023 (POA) and add “life sciences” to the list of “key national infrastructure”. It defines “life science infrastructure” as:
- places where pharmaceutical research or development takes place; or
- places where pharmaceutical products for medical use are manufactured; or
- places used for, or in connection with, activities authorised by a licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (“ASPA”).
Until now, the infrastructure protected by the POA covered roads, airports, harbours, railways, oil, gas, electricity and newspapers. This new addition means enhanced protection for animal testing facilities and related sites such as MBR Acres. It gives the police additional powers to arrest and prosecute activists deemed to be interfering with the operation of these facilities. Offences under this legislation carry penalties of up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
On 17th December 2025, a Delegated Legislation Committee met in Parliament to discuss the proposal to add “life sciences” to Section 7 of the Public Order Act. Many MPs attended the meeting to raise concerns. However, despite strong criticism, the committee voted in favour of the amendment.
You can read the transcript of this committee session here:
During this discussion, Sarah Jones MP (Minister for Policing and Crime) explained that all 135 establishments licensed by the Home Office to experiment on animals would be regarded as life science infrastructure. This includes MBR Acres, which holds a bleeding licence; all contract toxicology laboratories where the beagles are sent; universities; pharmaceutical companies; general research laboratories; and any other site connected to a licensed establishment.
The legislation protects not only licensed establishments but also places connected to them. The list of such places is potentially endless: animal suppliers, laboratory equipment manufacturers, recruitment agencies, animal feed suppliers, stationery providers, cleaning services, and so on.
Approval of the amendment in the House of Commons
Following approval by the Delegated Legislation Committee, the amendment progressed to the House of Commons. We worked closely with Naturewatch Foundation in a letter writing campaign to prevent this regulations from becoming law. Over all more than 30,000 letters objecting to this legislation change were sent by concerned citizens to MPs, alongside letters to the Secretary of State from affected organisations. Sadly, on 14th January MPs voted in favour of adding the animal testing industry to the list of key national infrastructure under Section 7 of the Public Order Act. The vote was 301 in favour and 110 against.
Although we were deeply upset by this result, the support we received was nothing short of amazing.
Approval of the amendment in the House of Lords
The legislation then moved to the House of Lords. Baroness Bennett raised a fatal motion, which offered peers an opportunity to block the amendment from becoming law. Since 1997, there have been only four successful fatal motions, but it was important to raise concerns in the House of Lords.
Yet again, despite considerable controversy and a lengthy debate, peers rejected the fatal motion and failed to respond to the tens of thousands of letters sent by concerned citizens. On 4th February, the House of Lords voted in favour of using the Public Order Act to protect the animal testing industry.
Since the amendment became law on 12th February 2026
New information has come to light indicating what we have long suspected: that the core motive behind classifying animal testing as “key national infrastructure” is to protect MBR Acres from the regular peaceful protests it has faced since 2021.
In response to a Parliamentary question, we have confirmation that representatives of MBR Acres met with the unelected Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology three times before the Government announced the amendment to the POA on 27th November:
- A meeting on 18th July with representatives of MBR and their main customers: Charles River, LabCorp and Sequani.
- A meeting on 17th September with MBR’s CEO, Scott Marshall, who travelled from the USA. Following a Freedom of Information request, a letter written by the Minister after this meeting and addressed to the Home Secretary was made public. The letter referred to an attached report, which has been redacted from public scrutiny. In the letter, the Minister explains that the report describes “the impact of protest on their company” and requests “support in progressing necessary legislation”.
- A meeting on 2 October.
The fight goes on
The future of Camp Beagle is being threatened. Despite constant reassurances from the Government that this legislative amendment will not be used against peaceful protest, we believe it was designed to protect MBR Acres from regular peaceful demonstrations and our successful public awareness campaign. Years of campaigning have resulted in widespread public outcry and continued political debate on animal testing in general, and the use of dogs in particular, which MBR sees as a threat to their lucrative business.
We will take each day as it comes, continue our peaceful protests, promote our upcoming parliamentary debate, and keep everyone updated via our social media platforms and mailing list.
Judicial Review
We, together with Lawyers for Animals, have applied for a Judicial Review of the POA amendment. The aim of a Judicial Review is for a judge from the High Court to assess if the Government acted lawfully when it decided to to classify the whole of the life science sector as key national infrastructure.
We first sent a formal Pre-Action Protocol letter to the Secretary of State for the Home Office explaining we believe the POA amendment is unlawful and must be revoked because:
Our case rests on two main arguments:
1. The Government Exceeded Its Powers
We argue that Parliament only gave the Home Secretary the power to add “key national infrastructure” – namely infrastructure that is essential to the daily life of the public – to the section 7 list. The life sciences sector is not “infrastructure”, let alone “key national infrastructure”, and so it is not a proper use of the Home Secretary’s powers to add life sciences to the section 7 list.
The regulations were passed using a “Henry VIII” power – a broad delegated power allowing ministers to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. Where there is doubt about their scope, such powers must be interpreted narrowly, especially where they expand criminal offences or interfere with fundamental rights.
2. The Regulations Are Irrational
We argue:
