-
Question
Why were peaceful protesters arrested despite liaising with the police in advance, and what legal changes will address concerns over arrests based on minor issues like luggage straps?
Minister reply
The minister emphasised that the arrests were made when there was reasonable belief of criminal grounds at the time. He acknowledged the right to protest peacefully but cautioned against claiming wrongful arrest without evidence.
-
Question
Will the Home Office consider recommendations from a review by the Home Affairs Committee on guidelines and laws regarding recent arrests?
Minister reply
The minister advised caution against assuming wrongful arrest without legal proof. He highlighted that testing of new legislation during such events should be seen in context, particularly given serious security threats.
-
Question
The shadow Minister thanked the police but raised serious concerns about arrests under new powers in the Public Order Act. She questioned why arresting officers did not know or take into account that Republic had been working with the police, why those people were held for 16 hours, and asked if the minister supports the Mayor of London’s review.
Minister reply
The Minister agreed to maintain the balance between peaceful protest rights and preventing disruption. He pointed out that protests happened peacefully but criticised acts designed to disrupt public life, such as closing down streets or causing harm.
-
Question
Does the Minister agree that police are within their rights to arrest individuals to prevent a crime? Does he agree that the police did an excellent job in difficult circumstances?
Minister reply
The Minister agreed that it is easy to criticise after the event but acknowledged that the police did a good job under extremely trying and fast-moving circumstances.
-
Question
Does the Minister agree with the statement by Graham Smith from Republic about arrests being a direct attack on democracy? Does it concern him that no certainty exists for similar circumstances happening again?
Minister reply
The Minister refuted claims that the right to protest does not exist, highlighting that hundreds of people protested peacefully and lawfully. He also pointed out that qualified rights can be balanced against democratically elected legislatures’ laws preventing criminal activity.
-
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Metropolitan police’s actions to protect the public during a unique state event?
Minister reply
The Minister agreed.
-
Question
Why did the Home Office send an official letter to Republic ahead of the coronation? How many other organisations received such letters?
Minister reply
The Minister suggested that those letters related to clarifying new statutory provisions brought into effect through the Public Order Act 2023. He emphasised the importance of police operational independence.
-
Question
Shouldn’t the misunderstanding have been resolved well within the 16 hours for which the six were incarcerated?
Minister reply
The Minister stated that precisely what happened is an operational matter for the police. He emphasised that complaint processes are available to anyone who encounters unreasonable behavior from the police.
-
Question
Is it not the case that arrests of peaceful protestors at the weekend were designed to clamp down on legitimate peaceful protest?
Minister reply
The Minister refuted this, stating that the Public Order Act is designed to prevent people from disrupting others’ daily lives while allowing for peaceful protests.
-
Question
The MP must add that peaceful protesting is still possible in London, as evidenced by his recent attendance at a protest against the ULEZ policy. He commends the police and armed forces for their efforts during the coronation celebrations.
Minister reply
The Minister agrees with Louie French’s assessment of the police's and armed forces' performance during the coronation events. Approximately 30,000 officers were deployed in total, with 11,500 on duty during the day of the coronation alongside 6,500 personnel from the armed forces.
-
Question
The MP questions the police's recent practice of apologising to people lawfully arrested. He argues that the Public Order Act lacks context or guidelines, leading to misuse by the police.
Minister reply
The Minister responds by stating that legislation often requires on-the-ground interpretation and the new act provides additional specificity and clarity compared to previous laws. The House is welcome to conduct scrutiny through post-legislative reviews.
-
Question
The MP expresses frustration at the constant apologies from police forces, which he believes lower morale among officers who did a good job during peaceful protests and celebrations.
Minister reply
The Minister suggests that members should read the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s article in today's Evening Standard defending the police approach to the coronation. He also notes that there were hundreds of people protesting peacefully out of thousands attending the celebration.
-
Question
The MP criticises the Public Order Bill as a draconian measure, rushed through without proper scrutiny and handed to a failing institution like the Metropolitan Police.
Minister reply
The Minister rejects Clive Lewis’s criticisms. He argues that the law prevents disruption to citizens' lives rather than undermining peaceful protest rights.
-
Question
The MP expresses concern about potential misuse of a perceived loophole in the Public Order Act by Just Stop Oil protesters who have adopted slow walking tactics.
Minister reply
The Minister confirms that police are using cumulative disruption tests to deal with such protests, ensuring quick resolution within 10 minutes typically.
-
Question
The MP questions the fairness of recent arrests and detentions, arguing it undermines peaceful protest rights.
Minister reply
The Minister argues that powers are designed to prevent disruption and protect freedom where no disruption is intended. He emphasises the law allows for peaceful protests not planning or causing disruption.
-
Question
The MP seeks an investigation into assurances given by Ministers regarding journalistic freedoms, which appear to have been compromised recently.
Minister reply
The Minister notes that specific protections for journalists were added during the Public Order Bill’s passage. He advises on using complaints processes if individuals feel they were not fairly treated.
-
Question
The MP cites criticism from a former Greater Manchester police chief about the broad and poorly defined nature of the Public Order Act.
Minister reply
The Minister disagrees with the assessment, believing that the act provides necessary clarity to prevent disruption.
-
Question
The MP questions how people attending a protest can be reassured about their rights when pre-emptive arrests and long detentions occur.
Minister reply
The Minister affirms that the Public Order Bill does not criminalise lawful protests. He mentions hundreds of peaceful protesters out of thousands at events, suggesting adherence to ECHR compatibility.
-
Question
There is no doubt that the police have a difficult job in making swift on-the-ground judgments, but their job is made harder when they do not act in a consistent manner. I had an eyewitness account that a protester was allowed to go in among the republicans unchallenged, jostling them and acting in a provocative manner right in front of the police for about 10 minutes before the police intervened.
Minister reply
I have not heard that particular account before. It is not really appropriate for me to comment on something that I have just heard about on the Floor of the Chamber. However, I have already drawn the attention of the House to the procedures that are available to members of the public.
-
Question
I voted against the Public Order Bill at every stage, but as a former police officer I highlighted, from Committee onwards, the need for training to give police officers the capacity and capability to exercise their powers so that those dynamic pressures that the Minister has just referred to can be dealt with appropriately. How many officers, at what rank, were trained in relation to this legislation prior to attending the coronation on Tuesday, and what did the training consist of?
Minister reply
The overall gold commander at the event is one of the Metropolitan police’s most experienced public order commanders—at the rank of commander. Many officers have had specialist public order training in the course of their career.
-
Question
Does the Minister agree that the Metropolitan police’s expression of regret regarding the arrest of six anti-monarchy protesters this weekend is an admission of guilt, and does he accept that that is a chilling violation of basic democratic rights that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Public Order Act should be immediately repealed?
Minister reply
No, I do not agree.
-
Question
The Minister has a real brass neck. The Tory Government brought in this draconian legislation, yet he tells us that the police are operationally independent of the Government, as if this is nothing to do with their actions.
Minister reply
With great respect, that is nonsense.
-
Question
I appreciate that this was an exceptionally challenging weekend for the police, but I am particularly concerned about the arrest and detention of members of the Westminster Night Stars team, volunteers out in central London helping to keep people safe. Communication between local authorities, the police and other agencies is critical.
Minister reply
I agree that communication between local authorities and the police is important and that that join-up needs to happen.
-
Question
No one will wish the new commissioner of the Met success more than London MPs, whose constituents have suffered a catalogue of institutional harm under his predecessors.
Minister reply
I do not accept that.
-
Question
The whole world could see on Saturday the effects of the public order legislation on policing, trying to prevent legitimate peaceful protest in a democracy. Will the Minister reply in a considered and reasonable way to say that he will undertake a full review of the operations of the Public Order Act thus far on preventing peaceful protest in this country?
-
Question
There is an unwritten law in Scotland that the best policing is carried out with the consent of the public. What is it about the Met that means that the policing of public events is heavy-handed and often completely wrong in its tone?
Minister reply
Training is very important, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned a little while ago.
-
Question
Following the arrests of peaceful pro-democracy campaigners on the route of the coronation on Saturday, the Security Minister’s claim that the weekend would “showcase our liberty” has fallen flat.
Minister reply
As I said earlier, those letters were not, as far as I can recall, sent in my name.
-
Question
Among those arrested on Saturday was Rich Felgate, a documentary filmmaker, who identified himself as a journalist. He claims that a police officer ripped off his press credentials.
Minister reply
As I have said two or three times already, the new Public Order Act contains a section—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) suggested a moment ago—that specifically to protect journalistic freedom.
-
Question
Given what happened to the six individuals on Saturday who were clearly not involved in any plot to use rape alarms or paint to disrupt the coronation—otherwise, why would the police have apologised to them—what confidence can the organisers of any future protest have that what they are told in advance planning meetings with the police can be relied upon on the day?
Minister reply
Without wanting to go into too many specifics, I believe that the police assessment at the time did not relate in this particular case to rape alarms or paint but to locking-on equipment. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is clear, but of course, many things are clear with hindsight; they are sometimes less clear in the heat of a live operation. In terms of assurance on the right to protest, the Public Order Act does not in any way infringe or undermine the right to protest. Indeed, we saw on Saturday quite a reasonably sized group—a few hundred people—protesting at the coronation event without any impediment, and these days we see Just Stop Oil protesters protesting almost daily.
-
Question
On Saturday, we saw Metropolitan police officers pre-arresting people whose only offence was to want an elected Head of State. Despite their planned peaceful protests being pre-authorised, UK citizens who had committed no crime whatsoever were taken off the streets and detained simply because of their political beliefs. Is that not exactly how this anti-democratic, draconian and authoritarian piece of legislation was designed to work, and is it not proof of what makes the legislation so dangerously wrong?
Minister reply
No, the legislation does not in any way criminalise or prevent protest. We see protests happening on a daily basis, including on Saturday. The legislation enables the police to prevent disruption. They need to have a reasonable belief in order to do that. If anyone feels that in this very small minority of cases—a tiny minority of cases—those powers were misapplied, there are complaints procedures.
-
Question
Can the Minister confirm whether the right to peaceful protest applies only if an individual’s views chime with the Government’s?
Minister reply
I am not sure that that question merits an answer. The legislation is clearly politics agnostic, and it is for the police to apply it without fear or favour.
-
Question
Does the Minister accept that the troubling scenes witnessed during the coronation vindicate Opposition Members who warned that the Government’s new anti-protest laws would be used to stifle dissent and limit freedom of expression? Does he accept that if we are to protect the most fundamental right of free speech, the Public Order Act must be scrapped in its entirety?
Minister reply
No. As I have said repeatedly, the Public Order Act and associated legislation are designed to prevent disruption to our fellow citizens’ day-to-day lives while enabling peaceful protest.
-
Question
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on securing the urgent question. The seemingly random way in which the Metropolitan police can apply the law only to fully exonerate those arrested soon after is something that one might see in an illiberal democracy like Hungary or Turkey, and all this just a week after the Security Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the coronation was a chance to “showcase our liberty”. Does the Minister agree with their colleague? Are these arrests a showcase of British liberty?
Minister reply
The fact that hundreds of people protested against the monarchy, albeit they were a tiny minority of the crowds, demonstrates that the right to protest is unfettered, as does the fact that, as I speak, and as we have this discussion here in Parliament, I suspect there are Just Stop Oil protesters somewhere in London no doubt up to their protesting activities. The right to protest is sacrosanct, and it is protected, not least by the European convention on human rights, but also by our domestic legislation.
-
Question
The Minister has repeatedly told us that there was evidence of, in his words, a well-developed plot to misuse activated rape alarms in a way that would clearly have been criminally reckless, which no one would condone. Given that that plot was so well developed, with the exception of three Night Stars volunteers who have been mentioned, can the Minister tell us, of all the people arrested, how many were found to be in possession of rape alarms, how many have been charged with intent to use those rape alarms for criminal purposes, and how many rape alarms were seized on Saturday? If the answer to all those questions is nil or next to nil, does he accept that in this case the police intelligence was badly and dangerously misinformed?
Minister reply
I think that there is an update on all the arrests on the Metropolitan police website, which provides some of the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. Some arrests were made close to the ceremonial footprint, including people who had large quantities of paint. Other arrests were made at locations away from the ceremonial footprint at what might be described as a safehouse. The briefings that I received from the Met the night before—I believe the Mayor of London received them and possibly the Home Secretary; I am not sure—indicated multiple, well-developed and credible plots materially to disrupt the coronation, and it is greatly to the credit of the Metropolitan police that they prevented those from unfolding.
-
Question
Participating as I have done in protests across Northern Ireland—all peaceful protests in the politics of Northern Ireland—I recognise that the Government are trying to ensure that peaceful protest can take place. The coronation weekend has been a globally celebrated event, and something on which the United Kingdom will look with pride for many years to come. The 64 arrests were made, as I understand it, in relation to intelligence that suggested that there would be deliberate attempts to cause nuisance on coronation day. Will the Minister join me in thanking the Met police, as opposed to critiquing them, for carrying out their duties in a swift manner, to enable people to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty the King in peace and without disruption?
Minister reply
Yes, I would like to join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police, the armed forces personnel and the civilians involved in laying on the coronation for a successful and, ultimately, peaceful event, despite the plots that were uncovered in advance. I also thank the police for ensuring that those protests were able to take place. It is an event that, overall, this country can be proud of.