Public Order

Asks if there are plans to ensure harsher penalties for habitual protesters.

Supports the Home Secretary's efforts and notes that if people with good arguments present them politely, the Government will listen eventually.

Accuses the Government of intensifying authoritarian measures due to their policies becoming unpopular. Criticises the heavy-handed and antidemocratic response.

Asks if there could be cases where protesters stop people from accessing emergency medical care, risking lives.

Underlines the importance of peaceful protest but expresses concern over police officers sympathetic to some causes and courts lenient towards criminal protesters. Questions how the new regulations will affect this mindset.

Questions whether the police specifically requested these new powers, noting that one deputy assistant commissioner stated they are already taking swift action against serious disruption.

Challenges the Home Secretary on her claim about the asylum backlog, stating it is important for ministers to correct any errors immediately. Requests clarification regarding police requests for specific wording in regulations.

Cooper criticises the Home Secretary for repeatedly proposing new legislation on public order without significant improvements. She highlights the chaos in the Conservative Party and its impact on governance. Cooper supports measures against serious disruption but argues that existing laws are sufficient to address such issues, questioning the necessity of further legal changes. She emphasises the importance of protecting peaceful protest while opposing disruptive actions that harm others.

Emphasises the balance between protest rights and citizens' daily freedoms, criticising opposition members for contradictory stances. Supports measures to limit disruptive protests while acknowledging peaceful protesting remains possible. Argues against disproportionate spending on policing protests and calls for more efficient methods. Highlights the importance of following democratic processes over disruptive actions.

The hon. Member emphasises that people protest because they feel ignored by Parliament and the Government, highlighting the suffragettes' struggle for voting rights as an example. She criticises the Home Secretary's approach to protests, suggesting it is a futile attempt to suppress dissent. Thewliss points out that the regulation could affect Scottish protesters who wish to demonstrate in England and Wales. The UK Constitutional Law Association describes these statutory instruments as defying Parliament's will and undermining civil liberties. She raises concerns about vague definitions of 'serious disruption' and 'minor hindrance', arguing they give too much discretion to police officers, potentially stifling legitimate protest activities.

The hon. Member takes issue with the shadow Home Secretary's conduct during the debate, noting her apparent disengagement from the proceedings. He mentions an article in The Economist about protests in the Netherlands, where 1,500 climate-change protesters were arrested after refusing to leave a motorway they had blocked. Maynard argues that there is always a choice for both protesters and police regarding how demonstrations are conducted.

The hon. Member does not provide an argument in the provided text but signals her intent to speak by rising.

Critiques the process and content of the legislation, highlighting issues such as lack of proper definition for 'minor' disruptions, the uneven focus on certain types of protests, and the inadequacy of addressing existing regulatory gaps through this new law. He also points out inconsistencies in support from political parties like the Democratic Unionists who might face similar issues but in a different context.

Intervenes to correct the historical record, stating that protests by the Countryside Alliance were well-coordinated with police and did not obstruct lawful business.

Rebuts Conservative assertions by recalling former member Julian Lewis's past actions during CND marches, suggesting inconsistency in the treatment of different protest groups.

Defends Northern Ireland-specific legislation regulating parades and protests, noting that existing laws have been accepted by members of various parties despite causing anxiety.

Questions the difference between Scottish protest notification requirements and the current English/Welsh legislation, pointing out potential criminal sanctions for not notifying police in Scotland.

The SI is an abuse of process, reversing the rejection of restrictions on protest by Parliament in February 2023. The regulations threaten parliamentary democracy and public trust in policing. Baroness Jenny Jones has tabled a fatal motion to stop this affront to rights and democracy.

Intervened to highlight that urgent, legitimate protests, such as those against evictions, cannot gain permission in advance yet are necessary for the protection of individuals' rights.

Asked if peers can adjust their balance when the conventions of this House have been disregarded by the Government in bringing regulations to this House.

Critiqued recent excessive police powers demonstrated in her constituency, including eviction of homeless people with riot officers. Urges against giving more power to unaccountable police when public trust is at a low following various incidents of police misconduct.

Mullan intervenes to argue against McDonnell's point, stating that unsuccessful protests do not indicate a failure of the democratic system. He suggests that protest should not be used as an argument for disruption if one does not achieve their goals.

Corbyn supports McDonnell's point, citing historical examples where protests led to significant changes and rights. He argues that the right to protest should not be legislated away as it has been a crucial part of winning important societal rights.

Carmichael raises concerns about the proposed legislation, questioning whether it is fair to place such decisions on police officers in the field rather than addressing these issues through a proper judicial process.

Mr Wilson argues that while protests are an important part of being a Protestant and participating in democracy, there must be limits to ensure they do not disproportionately impact others. He criticises certain protest methods for their hypocrisy and excessive disruption, such as those involving flying in from America or using private jets. Mr Wilson supports the proposed legislation, viewing it as necessary to balance protesters' rights with the need to prevent harm to communities.

The Home Secretary thanked Members for contributions to the debate on public order laws. She criticised Labour's approach as lacking seriousness and being obstructive, while highlighting successful policing during significant events like the coronation.

The Member pointed out that the shadow Secretary of State was often glued to her phone in debates.

The Member spoke powerfully about balancing rights with responsibilities, emphasising protecting law-abiding citizens from disruptions caused by minority protesters.

The Member highlighted the need for clear boundaries in public order laws to enable robust police action against disruptive protests.