Extracts from Home
Department topical questions
Sir (Northampton North) (Con): In
respect of the projection of an antisemitic,
terrorist-originating slogan on to the Big Ben tower last week,
the Metropolitan Police Commissioner claims that he is powerless.
That is utter nonsense, Among other options, the police could use
section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which refers to the use
of
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
with
“intent to cause…harassment, alarm or distress”.
It was behaviour, and it was insulting to Jews and many others.
The police could also have reasonably feared a breach of the
peace, ordered the removal of the projection machine, and, if
there was non-compliance, arrested the individual for obstructing
a constable under the Police Act 1996. I have personally
prosecuted people for these offences. Police who fail to do their
duty can be disciplined for neglect of that duty. Will the
Minister act?
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (): I am sure that all Members
were horrified when those political statements, one of which, by
implication, called for the destruction of Israel
were beamed on to the Big Ben tower. It was totally unacceptable,
and, incidentally, it was also a breach of planning law. I do
expect the police to take action; my right hon. and learned
Friend, a former Attorney General, has set out a number of
grounds on which it could have been taken, and he can rest
assured that I have forcefully communicated that to the
commissioner already.
(Redditch) (Con): The slogan
that was projected on to Big Ben last Wednesday was extreme and
antisemitic. To many, it calls for the destruction of Israel and is seen as a
genocidal statement. Decent people around the country—not just
Jews—find that appalling. Does the Minister agree that there are
criminal offences that could be used for prosecutions, and will
he reiterate his calls for the police to prosecute those
responsible?
: I share my hon. Friend’s view.
As the former Attorney General my right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Northampton North (Sir ) pointed out a few minutes
ago, there were a number of bases on which the police could have
acted to prevent that projection. Big Ben is not a canvas for
political campaigning, particularly where the slogans are deeply
offensive in nature, and that is a view I have made very clear to
the commissioner.
Point of Order
(Aberdeen South) (SNP): On a
point of order, Mr Speaker. Members from across the Chamber
probably do not need reminding of events last week. On SNP
Opposition day, we brought forward a motion seeking to ensure
that this House spoke with one voice in favour of ensuring the
release of the hostages currently under the control of Hamas, and
to ensure that an immediate ceasefire took place to protect
civilian life in Gaza. That SNP Opposition day turned into a
Labour Opposition day. In that regard, Mr Speaker, you apologised
to the SNP and this House. You said:
“I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We
can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is
so important to the House.”[—[Official Report, 22 February 2024;
Vol. 745, c. 872.] Those were your words, Mr Speaker.
In good faith, my colleagues and I sought to bring forward an
SO24 debate, which, among other things, would have sought to end
the sale of arms to Israel and call on the
Government to use their voice at the United Nations to exercise
our view in favour of an immediate ceasefire. It is my
understanding that that SO24 application has not been accepted.
Can you please advise me on when it will be accepted?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me
notice of his point of order. The Standing Order says that I
should not give the reasons for any decision regarding a Standing
Order No. 24 application. Indeed, properly, we should not be
discussing what is a private application to the Speaker. However,
given the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in today,
my view is that I ought none the less to explain my
reasoning.
In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed under
the Standing Order, I must have regard to two criteria. The first
is the extent to which it concerns the administrative
responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within
the scope of ministerial action. I am satisfied that the matter
does relate to areas of ministerial responsibility and falls
within the scope of ministerial action. Secondly, in determining
whether a matter is urgent, I must have regard to the probability
of the matter being brought before the House in time by other
means. The House came to a resolution on this matter on Wednesday
last week. Further, I understand that the Government are ready to
make a relevant statement tomorrow, so there is a very imminent
opportunity for this important matter to come before the
House.
That is why I decided that the application for an emergency
debate should not proceed. That decision of course does not mean
that Members cannot apply for a debate at a later stage, when
circumstances might have changed. While the decision is mine to
take, I have consulted my Deputies and the Clerks on this matter
and we have agreed on this approach.
Extract from Commons
statement on the Red Sea
(Glasgow North) (SNP): On 6
February —20 days ago—I tabled written question 13372, asking
“for what reason Israeli military planes have used UK airports on
each occasion since 7 October 2023.”
That may or may not be relevant to this statement, but I do not
know, because I have not yet received an answer. Can the
Secretary of State either answer the question now, or tell me
when I will receive a written answer?
Secretary of State for Defence (): I will certainly look into
that for the hon. Member, but I would have thought that Israel uses UK airports
for the purposes of flying El Al and other airlines to this
country.
