-
Question
Jarvis asks how other relevant Departments will be involved in preparing a response to Lord Walney’s report. He also questions whether the publication of the report could have been accelerated and if there are plans to update the counter-extremism strategy and hate crime strategy.
Minister reply
The Minister responds by emphasising that addressing extremism is an ongoing process, with multiple strategies in place across different Departments. He acknowledges that while Lord Walney’s work was comprehensive and required thorough consultation, he recognises Jarvis's point regarding timeliness.
-
Question
The hon. Member thanked the Minister for his statement, expressed support for clear guidelines around public order offences, hate crimes, and terrorist activities during protests, welcomed Lord Walney’s report on political violence and disruption and inquired about other relevant Ministers’ involvement in preparing a response to the report, questioned whether it would have been helpful if the report was published sooner, asked about updating counter-extremism strategy and hate crime strategy.
Minister reply
The Minister thanked Dan Jarvis for his comments and welcomed his approach to certain areas of the report. He stated that relevant departments such as DLUHC will be involved in discussing how to take forward the recommendations from the Walney report, including contributions towards policing costs by protest organisers. The Minister confirmed that he would update the House at an appropriate time.
-
Question
The right hon. Member highlighted Lord Walney’s recommendation 20 on requiring the organisers of repeated protest marches to contribute to the cost of policing and mentioned the example of relatives of wartime Telegraphist Air Gunners who were unable to hold their commemoration service at a memorial due to road closure and policing costs.
Minister reply
The Minister responded by highlighting that the challenges faced with different churches and communities are when individuals organise protests surrounding areas used for different purposes. He stressed the importance of ensuring democracy is performed where people associate together, feel part of a community, and understand their role in tradition.
-
Question
Critics the report's recommendations as further restricting protest rights and highlights conflicts of interest for Lord Walney. Expresses concern over recent court rulings against anti-protest laws.
Minister reply
Defends the Government’s position on standing up against extremism, regardless of who it targets. Notes that Lord Walney’s suggestions are under consideration but reiterates the importance of protecting citizens' freedoms from intimidation.
-
Question
Suggests exploring ways to confine protests to specific locations such as Speakers’ Corner to address public order issues.
Minister reply
Acknowledges the point and notes that Lord Walney’s report addresses aspects of repeated demonstrations stretching across city areas, suggesting the need for effective action.
-
Question
Deplores right-wing extremism and raises concerns about protection for Members who face threats. References past issues in Birmingham schools.
Minister reply
Expresses gratitude for Khalid Mahmood’s leadership on the Trojan horse scandal, stating willingness to work with him on addressing extremist issues.
-
Question
Praises Lord Walney's report and asks about ensuring individual police forces will implement new laws.
Minister reply
Acknowledges that some police forces are taking effective action but highlights the need for leadership from Police and Crime Commissioners, particularly in London.
-
Question
Calls for consensus-building on amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill involving protest policing.
Minister reply
Defends the need to serve British people rather than consensus-building with other Members, indicating willingness to work across all parts of the House.
-
Question
Welcomes the report and highlights the role of anonymity in social media in spreading extremism. Asks if anonymous accounts are appropriate in a democracy.
Minister reply
Acknowledges the importance of accountability for free speech online, noting that anonymous interactions can be particularly vitriolic.
-
Question
Earlier this week, I met a female chief fire officer who explained to me some of the intimidation, harassment and abuse that she had experienced, alongside some of her female colleagues in senior leadership roles in our emergency services, up to and including credible death threats. As far as I can tell, that is for no other reason than that they have the audacity to be women in senior leadership roles in our emergency services. The Walney reports considers the intimidation of academics and journalists, but I urge the Minister to speak to colleagues across Government to see what other protections we might need to offer those people doing incredibly important work, who under no circumstances should be subject to that type of intimidation?
Minister reply
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments; she makes some very good points. Yesterday I was talking to Festus Akinbusoye about the racism he faced as police and crime commissioner. Whether people are in a public-facing role in our emergency services—our ambulance, police or fire crews, for example—or they hold an elected position, from Prime Minister to parish councillor, the idea that they should face any hostility at all is unacceptable, but the idea that they should be targeted because of their sex, race, gender or religion is even more unacceptable. This country is extraordinary for many reasons. One thing that I love about it is the fact that many people from many different backgrounds have found their home here and have found their voice here and made it strongly. The transformation that has made to our country for the good is remarkable. I am hugely proud of that. To see that voice silenced by people, as the hon. Lady says, because they happen to be a female fire officer, is simply unacceptable, and I will certainly talk to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to see what more we can do.
-
Question
Does my right hon. Friend accept that at the next election it would be wrong for parliamentary candidates to be intimidated into not disclosing their home addresses on their nomination papers? If we change the conventions on that, we will be giving in to these threats. Does he also accept that if a person hires a public hall for a protest meeting, they are liable for public liability insurance? Might it not be better to say that if someone is organising a large public event in a public open space, they should also be liable for public insurance? Would that not be a better way of doing things, rather than expecting fees to be paid to the police?
Minister reply
As usual, I will listen very carefully to my hon. Friend’s suggestions. As for addresses, I do not think the election system will change between now and the second half of the year, as we have now learned. I look forward to standing in that election, whenever it comes, and for my address to be recorded as an address in the Tonbridge constituency.
-
Question
There are aspects of this report that I welcome. For example, the careful cataloguing of the harassment and intimidation of gender critical feminists across the United Kingdom is a valuable contribution to our public debate. However, I consider the recommendations to be largely far too draconian. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, has repeatedly stressed that public authorities, including the Government and the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to peaceful protest, and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest. Yesterday’s High Court ruling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), gave a very clear message that, in regulating protest, the Government must act within the law, and they must not pursue an anti-protest agenda at the expense of human rights, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. I would like a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and the right to protest will be at the heart of the Government’s consideration of the report’s recommendations.
Minister reply
I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Lady for her courage in speaking out on women’s rights, which she has done with enormous dignity and integrity, when others have sought to silence her by shouting her down, closing her out, or using genuinely quite vile language against her. She will, I hope, excuse me when I say that I have had the misfortune to see what some people have said to her on social media, and they are things that should not be said to anyone. The hon. and learned Lady’s approach is pragmatic, as usual, and I am grateful for that. This is a challenging report. The points that she makes about our having the civil rights to assemble, debate and discuss are correct. This Government are not trying to—and never will try to—silence the British people. Hearing the voices of our fellow citizens in the ways in which they choose to express them is, of course, part of a democracy, but the ways in which they choose to express them is also mitigated by the ways in which we choose to live as a community. Those choices we call laws, as she knows. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right in holding all of us to the principles that we have agreed in advance. What we are looking to do is ensure that those prior agreements—those laws—reflect the reality that everybody has the right to express their views and to live freely in our society, and that extremism and extremists have no place in it.
-
Question
This is a welcome statement. I have previously discussed some of these issues with Lord Walney. He is an incredibly thoughtful individual, and this is an incredibly thoughtful report. Some of those ridiculous smears that we heard earlier were completely unnecessary. As somebody who believes in freedom of protest, do I believe that there should be an unlimited, totally unfettered right to cause huge disruption to the majority of people who just want to go about their lives, no matter the economic cost? That includes, for example, Suffolk constabulary having its resources pulled to help out with the management of these protests. No, I do not think that there should be a totally unfettered, unlimited right, so I would welcome it if this report could help to address that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to hate—be that anti-Muslim hate or some of the antisemitism we have seen in recent months—it should be tackled and be seen to be tackled as it is happening, not simply after the event?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the police taking some very good action on some of these protests. I think about 600 or 700 people—I might be slightly out on the numbers, so forgive me—have now been arrested following the protests that we have regularly seen on these weekends. About 50 or so have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which is just to say that these are not small arrests, but serious crimes with which the police are dealing. I would like to make my next point extremely clearly. It is a point that was made to me by a middle-class Muslim family—not in my constituency—who have been friends of mine for many years. One of them said to me something that struck home very hard. They have been trying to protect their teenage kids, as we all do, from the kind of hatred and inspiration to hatred that is now all too prevalent online, through social media and sometimes other means. Then they see broadcast on national media the kind of despicable hatred that inspires people to radicalisation and extremism and, sadly, they say, “It is not your son who is likely to be radicalised into Islamist hatred; it is mine.” I am afraid that he is absolutely right. It is the responsibility of this Government, and any British Government, to protect the interests of every British citizen. Frankly, it would be racist and deeply unacceptable to consider that the radicalisation of one child is worth more or less than that of another. It is not, and it is wrong. That is why we will stand up against it. That is why, as my hon. Friend said, some of these protests are not just public order offences, but incitement to radicalisation and hatred, and they should be treated as such immediately.
-
Question
I wish to put it on record that things have been said today, on both sides of the House, with which I agree, but that fundamentally I disagree with this report. I also wish to put on record my commitment to the protection of democracy and to the hard-won rights that we enjoy today, but this report contributes nothing to those rights—in fact, it undermines them. This morning, I spoke to a legal mind and expert on these matters who, last night, had the pleasure of reading all 300 pages of the report. He told me that it was broad, sprawling, poorly written, littered with errors, not proofread, entirely confused and, frankly, ludicrous. I shall provide an example, on which the Minister may wish to comment on. Paragraph 1.12 of the report said the Government can “convene a process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism”. We have enjoyed the right to trial by jury in this country since before Magna Carta, and this report is undermining that. It is a sham report, and I hope the Government understand that.
Minister reply
As the hon. Member will understand, I will not answer every single page of the report at this stage. I will look at all the pages that have been submitted. In fact, I have looked at many of them already. The reality is that this will take a little bit of work, so I hope that he will understand.
-
Question
Asked the Minister about instances of intimidation and aggression faced by MPs, particularly in relation to personal safety and family well-being. She highlighted specific incidents and suggested an urgent Speaker’s Conference to address these issues.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the unacceptable nature of such incidents and expressed willingness to discuss them further. Stated that a defending democracy taskforce is already addressing these concerns without the need for a Speaker’s Conference.
-
Question
Critiqued the report as dangerous, draconian, and undemocratic due to potential conflicts of interest in its authorship. Asked if the Government would reject recommendation 27 undermining jury trials related to climate change and anti-racism, and whether they will protect the right to peaceful protest.
Minister reply
Announced that the decision from yesterday’s court is under review, and that a decision on appealing will be made.
-
Question
Asked about funding for operational costs in London due to increasing challenges outlined in the report. Also asked if the Minister would meet with BNO status holders from Hong Kong who are concerned about their safety.
Minister reply
Confirmed shared interest in protecting the rights of Hongkongers and BNOs, stating that they are British nationals first and foremost. Assured ongoing meetings to address concerns.
-
Question
Questioned the procedure used for introducing the report through unopposed returns, suggesting it may be a way to avoid scrutiny.
Minister reply
Clarified that using an independent report is standard practice and necessary to prevent vexatious prosecution. Stated that parliamentary privilege was afforded to the report.
-
Question
Acknowledged the Minister's seriousness in addressing issues but emphasised the importance of respecting police operational independence during protests.
Minister reply
Agreed on the importance of balancing different rights, such as the right to protest with the right for individuals to go about their daily activities without disruption.