MPs in the UK are scheduled to vote on 14 January on a proposed amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 (POA) that would classify “life sciences” facilities as “key national infrastructure.” The amendment would dramatically extend the powers of the state to police dissent if adopted, exposing anyone organizing or participating in protests around a broad, loosely defined category of sites to criminal penalties of up to 12 months imprisonment.
This proposal is drafted in terms so vague and expansive that its application extends well beyond pharmaceutical manufacturers into hospital facilities, research centres, biotechnology firms, and premises where animal testing is carried out. What it does, in effect, is criminalising animal welfare protest, protests over drug pricing, access to medicines, pharmaceutical lobbying, scientific ethics, and corporate accountability-all areas of debate already long at the heart of public interest advocacy in the UK.
A steady erosion of protest rights
This is not an isolated provision, either. The new provision is part of an overall trend of increasing regulations on the protest laws that have accelerated since 2022. As noted in the Human Rights Watch report “Silencing the Streets: The Right to Protest Under Attack in the UK from 2024, “successive reforms, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act, have extended vast policing discretions to ban assemblies that might be described as ‘noisy’, ‘disruptive’, or simply inconvenient.”
Now, when legal methods of protesting, such as slow marches, sit-ins, and peaceful blockades, have been increasingly labeled criminal activities that incur punishment such as arrest, heavy fines, and imprisonment even in the absence of violence. Thousands of protesters were arrested between 2022 and 2024 using broad powers that were criticized for being discriminatory.
The chilling effect of “national infrastructure” framing
Through the rebranding of the life sciences infrastructure provisions to now include them in the list of “key national infrastructure”, the provision brings the security regime that has, until now, been applicable to the likes of power plants, transport infrastructure, and the military, to the healthcare sector. This has been viewed as creating a gray area between the protection of the public and the industries.
The most disquieting part of this amendment is the use of the wordings that forbid protests which “interfere with the use or operation” of such places. Such words would certainly invite arbitrary interpretations, since protests can be restricted simply because employees are feeling uncomfortable, or because management perceives a disruption, or authorities simply expect inconvenience. Even small peaceful demonstrations, like picketing outside offices with placards, or carrying out silent vigils, may attract criminal liability.
Terror laws and protest: a dangerous convergence
Added to these concerns is the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group by the government, which has led to the increased use of terrorist-related laws against non-violent protesters. Legal experts and scholars assert that the use of terrorism-related frameworks in the context of protests may normalize the use of exceptional powers and may diminish the established checks and balances against possible government abuse.
According to human rights organizations, the protesters have increasingly had pre-emptive arrest, monitoring, and prosecution for terrorism despite not posing any plausible threats to security. The proposed amendment is expected to cement this practice by widening the locations where dissent can be regarded as a security crime.
Legal obligations under international law
In relation to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UK has an obligation to secure freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The restriction of freedom of assembly is subject to stringent tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality and is only justified for a legitimate aim.
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that a certain level of disruption or inconveniences to the economy may be tolerated as part of the costs of peaceful demonstrations. This, however, cannot be on grounds of discomfort to businesses, reputation, or inconveniences for operation as a universal bar to assembly. This amendment may fall within the proportionality tests that may be challenged, according to experts.
Shrinking democratic space
If enacted, the amendment would further narrow the physical and legal space for dissent, particularly on issues where corporate power, public health, and ethical accountability intersect. It would send a clear signal that economic and industrial interests are being prioritised over democratic participation, at a time when public trust in institutions is already under strain.
A test for Parliament
Parliament now faces a critical choice. Voting through this amendment would deepen the UK’s departure from its reputation as a defender of civil liberties and set a precedent for criminalising protest through vague legal standards. Rejecting it would reaffirm a commitment to democratic norms and the rule of law. A democracy that fears peaceful protest is a democracy in retreat. Parliament should vote down this amendment and halt the continued erosion of the right to dissent.