Not specified in this excerpt - Clause being debated is related to new Schedule 1 concerning injunctions and powers for the Secretary of State to remand individuals.

Moves that the clause be read a Second time. Specific arguments or details about the amendment are not provided in this excerpt.

The MP proposed several new clauses to enhance police powers in managing protests while ensuring accountability and oversight. She emphasised the need for guidelines on locking-on techniques, monitoring tools for specialist officers, and data transparency regarding stop-and-search practices.

Supports new clause 11 to protect women seeking abortions from harassment. Argues that PSPOs are insufficient and costly, while new clause 11 is narrowly tailored to abortion clinics only. Also supports new clauses 13 and 14 to address street harassment affecting 24,000 women daily, aiming for a standalone offence to gather data and send a clear message against such behavior.

Intervened to support new clause 11, stating it protects women from harassment while seeking lawful business. Emphasised that it aligns with Conservative principles of ensuring individuals can go about their business without interference.

Expressed concern over the breadth of new clauses 13 and 14, specifically highlighting cyber flashing as an issue that should be addressed separately through existing legislation such as the Online Safety Bill.

Called for brevity in speeches and managed debate flow.

Supported new clauses 13 and 14 on street harassment, emphasising slow progress despite previous work. Noted local buffer zone implementation but highlighted its piecemeal nature compared to national legislation need. Highlighted women's right to access healthcare under abortion law without intimidation or harassment. Cited Bournemouth case study involving significant cost to taxpayers but noted public support for protection measures in consultation. Emphasised the ongoing issue of 100,000 women targeted annually through abuse and harassment while seeking legal healthcare services. Called for national legislation to protect against such harassment.

Intervened to highlight local PSPO implementation issues in Birmingham, demonstrating how protesters were pushed further but still near a school, affecting younger girls. Argued for national legislation over individual council efforts due to legal challenges and resource disparities.

Welcomed Joanna Cherry's speech, emphasising unity within the Union. He acknowledged the concerns of Scottish constituents and invited them to share their views.

Reflected on the impact of the Bill on mutual aid in policing, highlighting considerations for Police Scotland if the provisions apply to officers attending protests in other parts of the UK.

Jenkin supports new clause 11, arguing that the existing statutory arrangements do not provide adequate protection for women seeking abortion services. He highlights that PSPOs are expensive to introduce and difficult to uphold in courts, and they create a patchwork of protections. Jenkin also mentions that rights groups did not oppose this amendment during Committee discussions.

I support the amendments as they protect democratic rights and processes. The legislation would criminalise peaceful protests that aim to prevent environmental harm and protect constituents' homes, potentially leading to arrests, fines, imprisonment, tagging, surveillance, and stop-and-search without suspicion.

Intervened to acknowledge that the campaign against Heathrow expansion has succeeded through the intelligent use of legal processes such as injunctions and challenges brought by local authorities.

She argues that new clause 11 fails the test of certainty and precision in its wording. She raises concerns about criminalising social workers who advise confused teenagers going to abortion clinics, and even those praying quietly near clinics. Bruce highlights that existing legislation such as the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Public Order Act 1986 provide sufficient powers to address harassment and intimidation without needing new laws.

[INTERVENTION] He questions whether Fiona Bruce's position means she is against the existing law that allows local authorities to ban activities around abortion clinics on a selective basis.

[INTERVENTION] She seeks an opportunity to speak, but her position is not yet clear from the given text.

Argues that the Bill introduces unnecessary new powers when existing laws suffice. Highlights concerns over stop and search provisions, SDPO measures, and their potential impact on peaceful protestors. Supports new clause 11 to safeguard access to healthcare.

Questions the adequacy of existing powers, suggesting that police resources may be stretched by protests in central London and implying a need for stronger action.

Asks if Labour would vote against Third Reading if new clause 11 is agreed to, indicating scepticism about its practical implementation or value.

He opposes SDPOs, arguing that they are unnecessary because existing laws such as obstruction of police officers and public nuisance can address disruptive individuals. He criticises the proposed law as an overreaction that undermines civil liberties and suggests it could embolden similar practices in other countries. Walker also warns against the slippery slope of eroding protest rights and expresses dissatisfaction with the Conservative party's stance.

Intervened to point out that despite routine arrests, there is a concern regarding the cumulative effect on Just Stop Oil protests. He suggests that 460 individuals being arrested 910 times indicates a need for additional measures like SDPOs.

Complimented Walker's speech and raised concerns about potential overreach of laws that could lead to prosecution for comments deemed conducive to public disorder, highlighting a broader concern about the chilling effect on free speech.

Supports new clauses that would require a public inquiry into the policing of black, Asian and minority ethnic people, an equality impact assessment of the Bill, protections for civil liberties and trade union rights. Argues against Government’s expansion of police powers in the Bill which exacerbates racial bias and discrimination.

Interjected to highlight disproportionate stop and search rates in Wales, calling for a Wales-specific justice impact assessment.

Called for more pressure on the Home Office to speed up inquiries following the death of Chris Kaba.

Argues that buffer zones would criminalise peaceful protestors and disproportionately impact elderly grandmothers who are simply raising awareness about support available to women facing difficult pregnancies. Emphasises the need for proportionality in legislation against disruptive protests by groups like Just Stop Oil.

Intervened to emphasise that buffer zones are necessary to support women presenting at abortion clinics, especially in the context of miscarriages. Argues for considering the reasons why women visit clinics.

Supports buffer zones, arguing that they protect women from intrusive protests. Criticises austerity measures and the Government's economic policies which contribute to social unrest. Highlights the overreach in the Bill and worries about its impact on right to protest.

Expresses support for new clause 11, highlighting its importance in ensuring that women accessing healthcare are not unduly harassed. Acknowledges concerns about the drafting but remains supportive of the principle behind it.

Interjected to suggest a buffer zone around Parliament, reflecting on daily harassment faced by MPs. Indicates sympathy with Simmonds' argument regarding the need for protection from undue disruption.

She argues against the need for the Bill, citing concerns about inconsistent application of criminal law and a breach of the rule of law. She notes that existing legislation already allows police to respond adequately to protests without new provisions. Chamberlain emphasises the potential negative impact on police capacity and relationships with activist groups.

Minister Jeremy Quin intervenes, clarifying that the Bill does not prevent protests but aims to address serious disruption interfering with people's normal activities and businesses. He respects Chamberlain’s experience but disputes her interpretation of the legislation.

Victoria Atkins argues that new clause 11 is crucial to protect women’s right to access abortion services without facing protests. She highlights the importance of balancing different viewpoints but prioritises the practical needs of women who may face difficult circumstances when seeking these services.

The right hon. Member agrees with Caroline Lucas, highlighting that many liberties we enjoy today are a result of past risks taken by those who protested.

The hon. Member questions whether Welsh language rights would exist today if similar measures to those proposed by the Government had been enacted in 1963 when protesters closed Trefechan bridge, leading to no arrests but significant public attention.

Ms. Lockhart opposes new clause 11, arguing that it is unnecessary because current laws already protect women from harassment and intimidation outside abortion clinics. She emphasised the absence of evidence indicating a significant problem with demonstrations affecting hospitals or clinics and highlighted potential unintended consequences for freedom of speech and expression.

Ms. McLaughlin argues that SDPOs are overly broad, invasive and could criminalize individuals for activities such as tweeting about a protest or lending their mobile phone to someone else who might be involved in a protest. She points out the lack of clarity on what constitutes 'serious disruption' and how it could allow for subjective interpretation by law enforcement. She also notes that SDPOs set an incredibly low threshold for these draconian measures, which infringe upon human rights.

He thanked MPs for their contributions and defended serious disruption prevention orders, arguing that they are necessary to prevent small numbers of individuals from repeatedly committing criminal offences. He stated that peaceful protests will not be affected by these changes.

[INTERVENTION] He questioned the necessity of putting ankle tags on people who have not been convicted of any crime, finding it excessive.

[INTERVENTION] He urged the Minister to recognise that current arrangements are inadequate and suggested thinking about how to build on arguments presented in new clause 11.

[INTERVENTION] She proposed that accepting and refining the amendment could send a message to the other place, indicating that the status quo is not acceptable.

[INTERVENTION] She asked for clarification on whether the Minister personally will vote against new clause 11, indicating support for a change in approach.

Asked the Home Secretary to commit to meeting in December to consider secondary legislation protecting food producers and security, highlighting unacceptable actions by vegan militias over the summer.

Noted anticipation of divisions on proposed amendments and new clauses. Indicated readiness for vote on new clause 4 if initiated.

Called for decisive action against extremist protests, citing the need for proactive policing to protect citizens. Reiterated concerns over resource allocation due to excessive focus on politically correct issues.

Asked if the police should consider wider cumulative impacts of protests and lock up protesters more efficiently.

Suggested that police should focus on dealing with guerrilla tactics harming London rather than policing pronouns, given limited resources.

Critiqued the Bill as a repetition of debates with no new measures on violence against women or victims' rights. Emphasised that existing laws already criminalise blocking roads and defacement; argued for protecting peaceful protest principles.