← Back to House of Commons Debates
Public Order Act 2023
16 May 2023
Lead MP
Nigel Evans
Witham
Con
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 30
At a Glance
Nigel Evans raised concerns about public order act 2023 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Nigel Evans
Con
Witham
Order. The Front Bench there is reserved for His Majesty’s official Opposition. I would be delighted to suspend the House for 10 minutes so I could go and have a cup of tea, but I am sure hon. Members will take their usual positions in order that we can start the second Opposition day motion on behalf of the SNP.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
The Public Order Act undermines and totally shreds the fundamental human rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and association. It applies to anyone who comes to London to protest, regardless of their origin, making it dangerous for people to exercise their right to protest freely.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
Asked why the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson is discussing an Act with limited applicability in Scotland and questioned why the Scottish Government approved some of the Bill via legislative consent despite strong opposition to it.
Highlighted that constituents in Scotland want to protest against bad decisions taken by this Parliament but have to put themselves at risk of arrest for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Argued that the claim of extinguished protest rights is false, citing peaceful protests during the coronation and daily Just Stop Oil demonstrations.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Asked if the hon. Member for Glasgow Central has ever engaged in extreme protesting methods and questioned her views on such actions.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Recalled his past arrest during a counter-protest and suggested that there are ways to protest without disrupting others. Acknowledged concerns about trade unions but reminded the House that industrial disputes are excluded from the Act.
Expressed concern over the Public Order Act being an attack on trade unions and freedom of labour, highlighting disruption in demonstrations during industrial unrest.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
The Act targets those who deliberately disrupt daily life through protests, not peaceful protesters. It received extensive scrutiny in Parliament and has broad public support.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
Ministers are here one day and gone the next, as always with this ever-revolving door of weak government. The Government is fighting democracy through unnecessary restrictions on the right to protest and voter ID at elections. We have debated extensively the right balance between public order legislation and freedom of protest; however, the Public Order Act does not apply in large parts of Scotland, where SNP Members are engaging in political stunts rather than addressing real issues like knife crime and violence against women.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
The debate is ongoing with several hon. Members rising to speak without specific time limits, as the Chair has indicated this is an Opposition day debate and it is up to them to decide who speaks and for how long.
Tom Hunt
Con
Ipswich
It is difficult to strike a balance between respecting peaceful protest and limiting it when protests cause disruption. Tom Hunt highlighted the Just Stop Oil protest in Ipswich on March 18, which caused traffic disruptions but was not as disruptive as feared. He criticised protesters for making demands rather than expressing views. He also mentioned that protests around oil refineries have pulled policing resources from Suffolk, affecting local crime and antisocial behaviour issues. Tom Hunt praised the police's handling of the Coronation Day events in London, emphasising the importance of preventing dangerous actions while allowing peaceful protest.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Karin Smyth intervened to express interest and concern for issues beyond just Scotland, indicating a broader perspective on the impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Roger Gale emphasised the importance of balancing human rights for both protesters and the public. He also informed Members about the planned timing for calling Front Benchers, indicating the remaining time available for contributions.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh Napier University
The Act applies only in England and Wales but affects Scots who come to London to protest. It also concerns foreigners like the Australian lady wrongfully arrested during the coronation, which should be challenged legally. The right to protest is fundamental even when it may upset some people.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Respects Joanna Cherry's views on gender but argues that the Public Order Act focuses on how protests infringe others' rights rather than content. It is about preventing excessive noise in public spaces, not restricting freedom of speech.
Agrees with Joanna Cherry that political pressure likely influenced the enforcement of the Act during the coronation and that its rushed passage sent a clear message to police about expected vigorous enforcement on that day.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
Questions whether Joanna Cherry would support repealing more draconian protest laws in Scotland, such as the requirement for 28 days' notice and harsh penalties for malicious mischief during protests around the Scottish Parliament.
James Daly
Con
Wells
Daly criticises members who claim to have witnessed events without being present and emphasises the importance of not involving politicians in law enforcement. He also argues against the SNP's perspective that anyone should be able to protest in any manner, highlighting the potential for disruption and harm.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
Jones intervenes to point out that laws made by Parliament affect police operations. She argues that the Act has put the police in a difficult situation, leading them to apologise for certain arrests during the coronation.
Stewart intervenes to clarify that political pressure was not the cause of arrests; it was due to following an Act of Parliament passed by this House.
Tom Hunt
Lab
Dewsbury
Hunt asks Daly why Labour shadow Ministers are heckling speeches from Conservatives instead of making their own contributions. He implies that Labour's absence suggests a lack of substantive arguments against the repeal.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Lewis intervenes to argue that context is crucial, even within a single event such as the coronation, and questions whether vocal protest would be allowed inside the abbey during the ceremony.
Tommy Sheppard
SNP
Edinburgh East
Called for the repeal of the Public Order Act, citing concerns over its impact on protesters' rights to peaceful assembly. Mentioned arrests during a coronation event and suggested that it undermines the UK's reputation as a defender of human rights.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
Responded by noting instances of protest-related arrests in Scotland, suggesting that Scottish authorities also balance competing rights.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
Voted against the Public Order Act and raised concerns about its impact on policing and protesters' rights. Emphasised the importance of dialogue between protesters and police, arguing that the new legislation undermines this relationship.
Mr. Grant argues that the Public Order Act should be repealed because it is a dangerous law affecting his constituents, including protests against nuclear weapons, pension theft, and inflation among other issues. He criticises the act for allowing arbitrary arrests based on absurd criteria like walking too slowly or having long shoelaces. Mr. Grant also points out inconsistencies in the police commissioner's statement regarding public safety concerns.
Anne McLaughlin
SNP
Glasgow North West
The hon. Member argues that the Labour party has failed to uphold its duty as a parliamentary opposition by not supporting a motion against suspicionless stop and search provisions in the Public Order Act, calling out their recent shift in stance due to potential electoral benefits.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
This debate is not about the nature of protest, but whether a small minority can use disruption to stop others from conducting their lives. It highlights the Scottish National Party's failure in policing and education, with crime rising despite increased taxes. The Public Order Act was passed and saw peaceful protests without significant disruptions.
Challenged the Conservative Minister regarding Keith Brown MSP's support for the Public Order Act, stating that although a minor part of it was supported by the SNP, the Scottish Government opposed the Act in its entirety.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.