The Bill is essential for addressing disruptive protests that obstruct public services. Stop and search without suspicion powers are necessary in fast-paced environments where reaching a level of suspicion may be challenging. The proposed amendments from Lords increase authorisation requirements, shorten time periods, and require higher communication standards which could hinder police operations.

Questioned whether the Bill ensures that policemen can still use their initiative to suspect crimes without needing evidence, supporting the lead MP's argument on preserving police discretion.

Illustrated how stop and search powers could be used to intercept individuals with materials for disruptive tactics before they act, supporting the lead MP's position on preventing planned disruptions.

Critiqued the low threshold required for suspicionless searches and expressed concern over potential misuse of these powers, highlighting risks to public rights and freedoms.

She argues that Clause 11 expands stop and search powers excessively, risking damage to police-community relations. She supports Lords amendments raising officer rank thresholds for authorisation, limiting use to serious disruptions, and ensuring transparency in power usage.

Intervened by suggesting that giving police more tools could command widespread public support to address disruptive protests, despite concerns about protest rights. Asked what alternatives Labour would offer.

Davis argues that the biggest curtailment of stop and search was in 2010 due to concerns about its impact on ethnic minorities. He supports practical changes proposed by Lords amendments but criticises the Government for opposing them, arguing they reset the approach to stop and search.

Jones intervenes to point out that under Boris Johnson's tenure as Mayor of London, the number of stop and searches decreased every year. She highlights concerns about racial profiling and the detrimental impact on trust in the police.

Malthouse argues that there was a significant reduction in knife crime during his tenure as Home Secretary and highlights an increase in confidence among minority communities, asserting that criticism of stop and search powers is unfounded.

McDonald supports previous speakers' arguments against suspicionless stop and search powers, stating that these powers are counterproductive and dangerous. He criticises the Government's disregard for concerns raised by the Casey report.

Chamberlain supports previous speakers' arguments and emphasises concerns about police capacity and training. She highlights issues with tactical support groups undermining local command structures and stresses the need for better decision-making by officers.

The hon. Member for Croydon South supports Lords amendments 6B to 6F, citing that these powers have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe according to HMICFRS. He also highlighted the importance of stop and search in removing knives from London's streets (350-400 per month) and reducing crime by an average of 13% based on US academic research. Philp emphasised that complaints against stop and searches are minimal, particularly since body-worn cameras have been introduced, ensuring respectful and appropriate conduct.