Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) (Urgent Question): To
ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make
a statement on the policing of protests during the coronation. The
Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp) The coronation
was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of national pride and a
moment when the eyes of the world were upon us. It was a ceremony
with roots over a millennium old, marking a renewed dedication
to...Request free trial
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
Department if she will make a statement on the policing of
protests during the coronation.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire ()
The coronation was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of
national pride and a moment when the eyes of the world were upon
us. It was a ceremony with roots over a millennium old, marking a
renewed dedication to service by His Majesty the King in this new
reign. The coronation went smoothly and without disruption. I
thank the 11,500 police officers who were on duty alongside 6,500
military personnel and many civilians.
Today, Commissioner Mark Rowley has outlined the intelligence
picture in the hours leading up to the coronation. It included
more than one plot to cause severe disruption by placing
activated rape alarms in the path of horses to induce a stampede
and a separate plot to douse participants in the procession with
paint. That was the context: a once in a generation national
moment facing specific intelligence threats about multiple,
well-organised plots to disrupt it. The focus of the police was,
rightly, on ensuring that the momentous occasion passed safely
and without major disruption. That was successful. All plots to
disrupt the coronation were foiled by a combination of
intelligence work and proactive vigilant policing on the ground.
I would like to thank the police and congratulate them on that
success.
At the same time, extensive—[Interruption.] Wait for it. At the
same time, extensive planning ensured that protests could take
place. That was also successful. Hundreds of protesters exercised
their right to peaceful protest, including a large group
numbering in the hundreds in and around Trafalgar Square. Where
the police reasonably believed they had grounds for arrest, they
acted. The latest information is that 64 arrests were made. I
will not comment on individual cases or specific decisions, but
the arrests included a person wanted for sexual offences, people
equipped to commit criminal damage with large quantities of
paint, and arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public
nuisance, often backed by intelligence. The Met’s update last
night included regret—to use its word—that six people arrested
could not join the hundreds protesting in Trafalgar Square and
nearby. The Met confirmed that those six people have now had
their bail cancelled with no further action.
The police are operationally independent and it is primarily for
the Mayor of London to hold the Met to account, but let us be
clear: at the weekend officers had to make difficult judgments in
fast time, in a highly pressured situation against a threatening
intelligence picture. I thank the police for doing that, for
delivering a successful a coronation and for enabling safe,
peaceful protests.
On Saturday, millions of people greatly enjoyed the coronation
ceremony. Others, who wish to see a republic, chose to protest
peacefully, as is their right in a democratic society. Protests
in Glasgow and Edinburgh went off without incident. In London,
however, protesters who had gone to considerable lengths to
liaise with the Metropolitan police in advance of their protest
to clear both the nature and the location of the protest, were
detained, searched, arrested and held in the cells from 7 am
until after 11 pm. All six of those arrested have now received
letters saying there will be no further action taken against
them. There were a number of other arrests of concern, but
because there are no legal proceedings in respect of the six, and
therefore no reason for Parliament not to begin today to address
what happened to them, I will focus on them.
, the leader of the group
Republic, tells me that the arresting police showed absolutely no
interest in contacting the liaison team and seemed focused on
luggage straps holding placards together, which they said might
be used to lock on. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has
repeatedly stressed that public authorities, including the
police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the
right to protest unlawfully and a positive obligation to
facilitate peaceful protest, so why did police arrest protesters
who had gone to such great lengths to clear their protest in
advance, and why did they do so on grounds that they now admit
were not sufficient to charge them and without following up with
the liaison team? What do citizens need to do now to clear a
protest in advance?
On the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme, Sir Peter Fahy, the former
chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that what
happened has to be seen in the context of media, political and
public pressure on the police. He referred to what he called
“some pretty direct and personal feedback”
brought to bear on Sir Mark Rowley before the Home Affairs
Committee on 26 April by the hon. Member for Ashfield ()—I have notified the hon.
Member that I would mention him, Mr Speaker. So, was political
pressure brought to bear on the police? Sir Peter also said that
the legislation, the Public Order Act 2023 and the policing Act,
is very poorly defined and far too broad. That was what
Opposition MPs warned of, particularly regarding offences such as
locking on. Will the Minister review the legislation and set up
an inquiry into what happened to those six citizens on
Saturday?
I have the greatest respect for the hon. and learned Member and
take her questions seriously. She asked about pressure; the
police are operationally independent and make decisions
independent of Government. Ministers received a briefing,
particularly as the intelligence picture escalated in the 24
hours before the event. The Mayor of London also received
briefings, as did the shadow Home Secretary on Friday, I believe.
There is nothing out of the ordinary in Ministers receiving
briefings, not least because the police and other security and
civilian agencies need to co-ordinate. The House has just debated
and scrutinised the legislation at some length, and there are no
plans to change it.
On the six people arrested and the question of protests more
generally, I repeat the point I made in my initial answer:
hundreds of people exercised their right to protest peacefully.
As the hon. and learned Lady said, that was done following
engagement with the Republic protest group. The fact that
hundreds of people were able to protest peacefully is testament
to the right of peaceful protest.
I do not want to get into the details of the six people because,
frankly, neither the hon. and learned Lady nor I has all the
facts. But clearly, when the arrests were made, the police
reasonably believed that there were grounds to do so. I emphasise
again that several hundred people were able to peacefully protest
on that day, as is their absolute right.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
Nobody should question that it was a difficult time and a
difficult task for the Metropolitan police. Nobody should
question that, to a large extent, they carried it out brilliantly
and gave us a marvellous occasion this weekend. That being said,
within one week of the Public Order Act entering the law, and in
its first serious use, we end up with the head of the Met having
to apologise to people who were wrongfully arrested. In the event
that the Home Affairs Committee reviews this matter and comes
back with recommendations on how to change guidelines and perhaps
laws, will the Home Office take that on board?
I caution my right hon. Friend against asserting that those
people were wrongfully arrested. That is a legal threshold and it
has not been established that it was met. On the issue of testing
the legislation, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that
this was a once-in-a-lifetime event, which took place against an
intelligence backdrop that suggested that there were multiple,
well-organised plots to cause serious disruption. Had they
proceeded, they would have been taken very seriously by this
House and been seen around the world. I do not think one can
infer from what happened at the weekend that the recently passed
legislation is defective.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
The coronation of King Charles III involved the largest police
effort ever undertaken. I thank the thousands of police officers
who ensured that so many people were able to enjoy such a
historic occasion without incident. Rightly in our democracy, the
police had operational responsibility and had to take decisions
at pace and under pressure. Rightly in our democracy, we have
scrutiny and accountability where problems arise. Hundreds of
people who chose to do so were able to protest. As the Minister
stated, some plans to disrupt were foiled, but serious concerns
have been raised about some of the arrests.
The six people from Republic were arrested under new powers in
the Public Order Act for
“being equipped for locking on”,
which came into force two days before the coronation. They have
now been released with no further action, and the Met has
expressed regret. The Minister knows that I have warned him and
his colleagues repeatedly that the new powers mean that people
might be arrested for the wrong thing, such as carrying in their
bag a bike lock or, as in this case, some luggage straps. Many
former police officers have warned that the powers put the police
in a difficult position and risk undermining the notion of
policing by consent.
The arrests raise questions that we want answers to. Why did the
arresting officers not know or take into account that Republic
had been working with the police? Why were those people held for
16 hours? Does the Minister support the Mayor of London’s review,
so that Parliament can see the lessons to be learned? Will the
Minister ask the inspectorate and the College of Policing to
monitor and review the new public order powers and report back to
Parliament? Will he support the recommendations in the
inspectorate’s report for more specific training on public order
for our officers?
This weekend was a celebration, and one that could not have
happened without the dedication of our police service. But just
as important to our British democracy as our constitutional
monarchy is our historic model of policing by consent, trust and
our freedom to protest peacefully. It is our job as Members of
Parliament to come up with laws that solve problems rather than
creating them. I urge the Minister to learn the lessons and take
responsibility for protecting that careful balance between the
police and the people.
I agree with the shadow Minister that it is important to maintain
the balance to which she refers, but as I said in my opening and
subsequent responses to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh
South West (), the right to protest was,
for those hundreds of people, protected. The protests did happen,
and indeed there is no question, in principle or in any
legislation, but that the right to peaceful protest is
sacrosanct. In recent months, however, we have seen that right
being stretched into acts that were deliberately disruptive, when
people have sought to close down the M25 and to close down the
streets of London, not so much as an act of protest as to
deliberately inconvenience the public. That is where we draw the
line.
At the weekend, broadly the same test was applied. Peaceful
protest is, of course, absolutely fine, but activity that was
designed to seriously disrupt the coronation—including
potentially causing a stampede of horses or covering the
ceremonial procession in paint—was not acceptable. I think we can
agree that this was a unique situation. The police had to make
very difficult judgments and decisions in a very short time,
against an extremely threatening intelligence picture, and the
facts were often unclear at the time. I think all of us here
should accept that those are difficult decisions. While it is for
the police to answer operationally, I think that if they were
here, they would say that they acted lawfully at the time to the
best of their reasonable belief. However, I do want to put on
record that the right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct, and I am
sure that no one on either side of the House would ever seek to
undermine it.
(Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, as a matter of law, the police are
entirely within their rights to arrest individuals in order to
prevent a crime? That happens somewhere in the country pretty
much every day. Obviously, the police do not wait until a crime
is committed—until the active offence is committed—before acting.
If they know from intelligence received that an armed robbery was
about to take place, they do not have to wait until it is taking
place before acting, and the same applies here. Does the Minister
agree that the police did an excellent job in very difficult
circumstances? This is a Government who support the police; we
will leave the Opposition parties to support those who do not
follow the law.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not at the Bar
now. He must ask shorter questions.
It is easy to criticise after the event, but yes, I do agree that
the police did a good job in extremely trying, difficult and
fast-moving circumstances, and in which judgments were inevitably
difficult.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said
that the Public Order Act is incompatible with the right to
freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and it
is deeply disappointing to hear both Labour and the Conservatives
make it clear that they are wedded to legislation that undermines
our rights to protest. , the CEO of Republic, has
said:
“These arrests are a direct attack on our democracy and the
fundamental rights of every person in the country… The right to
protest peacefully in the UK no longer exists. Instead we have a
freedom to protest that is contingent on political decisions made
by ministers and senior police officers.”
That is entirely unacceptable.
In the statement that he has issued, Sir Mark Rowley said:
“Having now reviewed the evidence and potential lines of enquiry
we do not judge that we will be able to prove criminal intent
beyond all reasonable doubt.”
So these arrests were not necessary. Sir Mark also said:
“I support the officers’ actions in this unique fast moving
operational context.”
That suggests that there is no certainty that if similar
circumstances occurred, the same thing would not happen again.
Will the Minister tell me what protections people can expect when
they, in good faith, engage with authorities before protests to
prevent this kind of thing from happening, only to find it
happening again, and does it concern him that a journalist was
among those arrested?
It is entirely inaccurate to say that the right to protest does
not exist. As I pointed out, hundreds and hundreds of people did
peacefully and lawfully protest on coronation day. They did so
unmolested and unimpeded, which goes to show that the idea that
the right to protest does not exist anymore is absolute nonsense.
What does not exist is the right to cause disruption to other
members of society. That is what our laws seek to prevent.
In relation to the Human Rights Act 1998, and particularly
articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights,
the Public Order Act 2023 has a section 19(1)(a) statement on the
face of it, saying that legal analysis finds the Act is
compatible. If the hon. Lady studies articles 10 and 11,
particularly the second paragraphs, she will see that qualified
rights are able to be balanced against the right of
democratically elected legislatures to legislate to prevent
criminal activity, including disruption.
(Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Metropolitan
police did a great job? They took the necessary action to protect
the public during a unique state event. We have heard not one
word from Opposition Members—and will not hear anything in what
is yet to come—that provides evidence to the contrary. It is
reassuring that, for once, the Metropolitan police acted on the
side of the hard-working public who want to have the opportunity
to enjoy events, rather than being the victims of left-wing
protest groups.
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
I add my thanks to those involved in the arrangements for the
coronation and keeping the public safe. However, the Home Affairs
Committee will no doubt want to look at the policing of protests
at the coronation and, in particular, the specific provisions in
the Public Order Act 2023, brought in just last week and used to
arrest members of Republic.
We have heard a lot about the operational independence of the
police this afternoon. Will the Minister explain why on 27 April
the Home Office’s police powers unit sent an official letter to
Republic, ahead of the coronation? Republic has no history of its
members locking on. How many other organisations and groups
received such letters? On what basis were they sent those
letters? Will that practice now be the norm for the Home
Office?
I do not believe that any such letters were sent in my name, so I
cannot comment on who may have received them. I suspect, although
I am not certain, that those letters related to clarifying the
new statutory provisions that were recently brought into effect
through the Public Order Act 2023. The operational independence
of the police is important, because Parliament legislates and it
is then for the police to apply those laws without fear or
favour, and they did so on this occasion.
(New Forest West) (Con)
There has clearly been a misunderstanding, despite the police
doing a brilliant job, and that is why there has been an apology.
But would the Minister not expect that misunderstanding to have
been resolved well within the 16 hours for which the six were
incarcerated? Surely there should be some questions asked about
that.
Again, exactly what happened is an operational matter for the
police. Clearly, last Saturday the police had a lot going on in
central London, policing the largest public event we have ever
had in our country’s history. I do not know—in fact, no Member of
this House knows or can know—precisely what inquiries were being
undertaken while the decision ultimately to release those
individuals was taken. Complaint processes are available if any
individual member of the public wants to follow them. They are
available to anyone who is arrested or encounters the police. If
someone feels that the police have behaved unreasonably in a
particular situation, they are able to use those complaint
procedures.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the arrests of peaceful protestors at the
weekend were not an aberration, but exactly what the Public Order
Act is designed to do—to clamp down on legitimate peaceful
protest, which should be a basic democratic right in this
country?
No, that is not the purpose of the Public Order Act, which is
designed to prevent people from deliberately disrupting the daily
lives of their fellow citizens, as we have seen with the
locking-on on public highways, which causes enormous traffic jams
that stop people getting to hospital, getting their children to
school and getting to work—we have seen 10-mile tailbacks on the
M25. We had specific intelligence that people planned to disrupt
the coronation by creating a stampede of horses and by covering
the ceremonial procession in paint. The Public Order Act is
designed to stop such disruption while, of course, allowing
peaceful protest. That is its purpose.
Mr (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
(Con)
Given the heat of this debate, I must add, as a Greater London
MP, that it is complete and utter nonsense to say that people can
no longer peacefully protest in London. I attended my first
protest a couple of weeks ago, against the Mayor of London’s
disgraceful ultra low emission zone, and we were left to protest
peacefully. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, over the
weekend, the 11,500 police officers and armed forces personnel
did an excellent job of policing and keeping the public safe
during the fantastic coronation celebrations?
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I join him in opposing
Sadiq Khan’s appalling ULEZ idea.
The police and armed forces did a great job of policing the
coronation. Between the Metropolitan police and Thames Valley
police, who policed the Windsor concert the following day, almost
30,000 officers were deployed at one time or another during the
relevant period. I think 11,500 officers were deployed on the day
of the coronation itself, in addition to 6,500 armed forces
personnel. There were 312 protected people who came to this
country from around the world, and we deployed almost 1,000 close
protection officers. All those officers did a fantastic job in a
moment of national pride for all of us.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I am a little surprised that the Minister apparently accepts,
without question, the proposition that the Metropolitan police
now apologises to people who have been lawfully arrested. Even by
his standards, that is something of a novel departure.
The Public Order Act has given police officers broad and sweeping
powers, which in turn require the police to exercise discretion
and judgment with no context or guidelines. If there is no change
to this legislation, such things will keep happening. There
should have been better pre-legislative scrutiny of the Act, but
there was not. Will he now commit to allowing post-legislative
scrutiny?
Many pieces of legislation require on-the-ground interpretation,
whether by the police or subsequently by the courts in case law.
Indeed, the new Act contains much more precise definitions of
what constitutes serious disruption, which was previously
extremely ambiguous. The police and others had called for that
clarity. Obviously, the House is welcome to conduct scrutiny
whenever it wants. It is standard for new legislation to be
subject to post-legislative scrutiny some time later, but in many
areas this new Act, which recently received Royal Assent,
provides additional specificity, clarity and precision that were
previously lacking.
(Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister rightly said that hundreds of people protested
against the once-in-a-generation coronation. Hundreds of
thousands of people were present to celebrate the coronation, and
millions in the United Kingdom and around the world were
watching. I am getting pretty fed up with the police apologising
all the time. Ordinary police officers who do a decent job, as
they did on Saturday, find their morale at rock bottom when,
after being instructed by the Metropolitan police on 3 May
that
“We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this
celebration”,
someone apologises because they did just that.
I recommend that Members on both sides of the House read the
Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s article in today’s Evening
Standard robustly setting out the background and defending the
police’s approach to the coronation. My hon. Friend refers to the
expression of regret that those six people were unable to join
the hundreds of others who protested peacefully. Those hundreds
of others were exercising their right to peaceful protest, as
they are perfectly entitled to do. It is worth mentioning in
passing, as he did, that they were in a tiny, tiny minority, but
that does not undermine their right to protest if they so
choose.
(Norwich South) (Lab)
This is obvious to anyone who looks at it; we take a piece of
draconian legislation, such as the Public Order Bill, we rush it
through this place, via an unelected Head of State, who gave it
consent, and we hand it to a failing institution such as the
Metropolitan police, who then decapitate the leadership of the
republican protest movement. What do we expect? This piece of
legislation is doing exactly what it says on the tin: it is
stopping peaceful protest.
That is absolute nonsense. This legislation is preventing
disruption to the lives of our fellow citizens. I wholly
repudiate the suggestion that it was rushed through; there was
extensive ping-pong, which I do not recall the hon. Gentleman
turning up to, although he is so concerned about scrutiny. As for
his comment about the process for a Bill gaining Royal Assent, I
will not dignify that with a response.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I cannot think of a greater waste of time than an inquiry into
this matter. The police did a fantastic job over the weekend.
They took actions under pressure, having to make decisions
quickly to ensure that a great national event went ahead without
any kind of negative event—I am glad that that happened. Does the
Minister share my concerns that some Just Stop Oil protesters
think they might have found a loophole in the Public Order Act
and can get away with slow marching? Will he assure me that that
is not the case and that we will not continue to see Just Stop
Oil protests cause havoc in our towns?
Just Stop Oil has adapted its tactics since it blocked the M25 in
November, causing 10-mile tailbacks, after which a number of
arrests were made, with some of the people involved then being
remanded in custody. It has changed to these slow walking
tactics, but the police are applying cumulative disruption tests
to those, using section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 and
making notices under that Act. Following recent disruptions in
the past 10 to 14 days, the roads have typically been cleared
within 10 minutes, which I am sure Londoners, my constituents and
others, will welcome strongly.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
The Minister just said that the right to peaceful protest is
sacrosanct and no one would seek to undermine it, but I put it to
him that that is exactly what his Government have just done:
Ministers are criminalising protest. Just because some people
were allowed to protest, that does not mitigate against the fact
that a number were not. Let me just correct him: those who were
arrested and kept in were not causing an obstruction, which is
presumably why the police went to apologise to them afterwards.
Does this not show that the powers the Government have handed to
the police are dangerously broad and liable to gross misuse, as
many of us have pointed out? I urge him again to review this
legislation urgently.
I do not accept that analysis. The powers are designed to prevent
disruption where it might occur or where it is occurring. That
includes things such as locking on, which we have seen cause huge
disruption on the streets of London. The law allows peaceful
protest where it is not disruptive and where people do not plan
to cause disruption, which is why hundreds and hundreds of
people, albeit a tiny minority of the total there, were able to
protest peacefully. Where someone is preparing to commit or is
committing a criminal offence, such as disrupting a procession,
it is reasonable for the police to act.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
As the secretary of the National Union of Journalists’
parliamentary group throughout the passage of the public order
legislation, I asked for and was given assurances by Ministers
that it would not impede upon journalistic freedoms. Yet, on
Saturday at least one journalist was stopped and searched—nothing
was found. He was handcuffed, he had his credentials torn off him
and he was then detained for 16 hours. He is a member of Bectu
and a professional film maker. Will the Minister investigate why
the assurances this House was given on media freedom were not
adhered to?
The new legislation contains a specific clause, added during its
passage, protecting journalistic freedoms. An incident took place
in Hertfordshire a few months ago, in November, I believe, where
a journalist was incorrectly arrested and the relevant police
force, Hertfordshire, apologised subsequently. The Government
then legislated in the recent Bill, with a specific clause
protecting journalistic freedom. I do not want to comment on an
individual operational matter, not least because neither the
right hon. Gentleman nor I have the full facts. As I said, if an
individual or others feel that they were not fairly or properly
treated, there is a complaints process they can go through.
Parliament, however, has made its view clear.
(Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
(SNP)
Does the Minister agree with the former Greater Manchester police
chief, Sir Peter Fahy, who has extensive experience of public
order policing, who previously said that the Public Order Act
was
“poorly defined and far too broad”
and who added this weekend that we now
“see the consequences of that”?
No, I do not agree, and I have already explained why.
(Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister has repeatedly used the example of hundreds being
able to protest as evidence that our right to protest has not
been undermined. But when people can be pre-emptively arrested on
the flimsiest of pretences and then thrown in a police cell for
the best part of 24 hours, how can he reassure people who are
attending a protest, or even walking near a protest, that the
same thing will not happen to them? How can he claim that our
right to protest is not being undermined by his Government?
I have mentioned the ECHR compatibility, particularly in relation
to articles 10 and 11. Before the police can arrest anyone, they
have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence has
been committed. Obviously, individual operational decisions—in
this case relating to six people—are something that can be looked
into subsequently if that is necessary, but the Public Order
Bill, as passed by Parliament, does nothing to criminalise lawful
protest. As I have said, hundreds and hundreds of people did
exercise exactly that right, although they were in a tiny
minority.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
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. There was no doubt that
that was disruption, but the police did not act for quite a long
time. Does the Minister agree that that sort of thing creates the
impression that some types of protest are more equal than
others?
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. I do appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
opening comment that the police had a very difficult job. They
were under enormous pressure; they were dealing with a number of
intelligence threats that I outlined at the beginning of my
response. Things were moving very quickly. Often the picture was
confusing, and often things had to be done in a rush, so I do
appreciate his acknowledgment of the very difficult job that the
police had to do, but I think they rose to the occasion
(North East Fife)
(LD)
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?
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, but training must
keep up with legislative changes. The College of Policing and
others will be issuing the relevant guidance to ensure that that
is addressed.
(Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab)
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?
No, I do not agree.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
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. Human Rights Watch has said
that what we saw was,
“something you would expect to see in Moscow not London.”
Given that reportedly only 6% of those arrested for protesting
against the coronation were charged with anything at all, does
the Minister agree that the new legislation is nothing but an
advert for how to impede people’s right to protest?
With great respect, that is nonsense. Comparing the policing of
the coronation with Putin’s Russia, where opposition figures are
incarcerated and people such as Alexei Navalny are in prison and
suffering the most appalling and inhumane treatment, is an insult
to the appalling treatment they are suffering and not at all
respectful to those being oppressed in Russia. Hundreds of people
peacefully protested against the monarchy—they were a tiny
minority, but they did protest—and the police only made arrests,
64 in total, where they had reasonable grounds to believe that a
criminal offence had been committed or was in preparation. If
anyone feels the arrest they experienced was not proper or
appropriate, there are mechanisms they can use to complain and to
seek redress.
(Westminster North) (Lab)
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. Can the Minister assure me that he will
find out what went wrong in that communication to ensure that
lessons are learned, so that volunteers who are out supporting
the police in their work do not get arrested because of a
breakdown in such communication?
I agree that communication between local authorities and the
police is important and that that join-up needs to happen. The
question the hon. Lady asks is probably best directed via the
police and crime commissioner for the Mayor of London, who I am
sure will be happy to take up the query.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
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, but his statement in
the Evening Standard today is political somersaulting from start
to finish, including justifying arrests because celebrating
crowds “applauded and cheered” them. Is that not a direct result
of the undue pressure put on the commissioner by a Conservative
party that increasingly picks and chooses when it follows the
rule of law?
I do not accept that. I have already pointed out the operational
independence of the police and I have said that briefings by the
Met on the coronation were received not just by Home Office
Ministers, but also by the shadow Home Secretary and the Mayor of
London, all of which was completely proper.
(Islington North) (Ind)
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, as an example of how
a democracy is prepared to admit it has got something wrong and
change it?
No. What we saw on Saturday was the police doing their best, in
very difficult and challenging circumstances, to prevent
disruption while allowing and facilitating peaceful protest,
which indeed went ahead.
(Dunfermline and West
Fife) (SNP)
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? When that becomes part of
the policing approach, does that not undermine public confidence
in the police itself? Will the Minister review urgently the basic
training needs at the Met, and does this Government diktat
through the Public Order Act not get in the way of good
policing?
Training is very important, as the hon. Member for North East
Fife () mentioned a little
while ago, but, once again, I do not think we saw any trampling
on the right to protest. We saw hundreds of people exercising
their right to protest. I urge the House to keep in mind that
this was a unique, once-in-a-generation event. The eyes of the
world were upon us and there were numerous intelligence reports,
which I was briefed on and perhaps the shadow Home Secretary was
briefed on too, indicating well-developed plots to disrupt the
coronation. The policing response needs to be considered in that
context.
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
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. Can the Minister explain why the Home Office, and not the
Metropolitan police, wrote what protest groups have referred to
as “intimidatory” letters about the public order powers, and will
he provide a comprehensive explanation of why journalists are now
being arrested when section 17 of the Public Order Act prohibits
it?
As I said earlier, those letters were not, as far as I can
recall, sent in my name. They may well have been attempting to be
helpful by clarifying recently enacted legislation that some
groups may not have been familiar with; it is not unreasonable to
try to ensure that relevant parties know when the law changes. On
journalistic freedom, as the hon. Lady says, this House—supported
by the Government—voted particularly and specifically to protect
journalists, and that is the right thing to do. If anyone feels
that that has not been properly implemented, complaints
procedures are available.
(St Albans) (LD)
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, and that he
was then arrested and detained. The Minister will know that Rich
was one of four journalists and filmmakers who were arrested and
detained in or near my constituency in Hertfordshire last
November. It is incomprehensible to me that after the outcry last
November, police forces can keep getting the basics wrong when it
comes to protecting the freedom of the press and the right of
journalists to do their jobs. Will the Minister look again at the
legislation and consider the proposal for a statutory duty on
police to facilitate peaceful protest and for a code of conduct
so that the police and protesters know where they stand?
As I have said two or three times already, the new Public Order
Act contains a section—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley () suggested a moment ago that
it was section 17—specifically to protect journalistic freedom.
Of course, that came after the incident in Hertfordshire. If
there are particular individual cases where the new law, and
indeed the wider ECHR and common law right for journalists, is
not being applied, there are complaints mechanisms. But this
House, supported by the Government, has legislated specifically
to protect journalistic freedoms.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
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?
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, so there is
evidence in front of us showing us how the right to protest
unfolds on a near daily basis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
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?
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, but the vast, vast, vast majority of
people wishing to protest on Saturday did so.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
Can the Minister confirm whether the right to peaceful protest
applies only if an individual’s views chime with the
Government’s?
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.
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
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?
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.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South
West () 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?
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,
which is something we should all be pleased about.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
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?
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.
(Strangford) (DUP)
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?
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. I am sure all of us want to wish King Charles
III well at the beginning of his reign and say, “God save the
King.”
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
|
