Public Order Act 2023

Debate between Julian Lewis and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

People should have the right to protest in the way they see fit. This Government are running scared of protesters, who have had to take radical steps because the Government are not listening to their legitimate concerns.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

I will make some progress.

When it came to the protests and the rest of the coronation, I was appalled and outraged, but not surprised. It is no coincidence that the Act got Royal Assent four days before the coronation—that is the state that we are in. When a self-declared royal super-fan can be arrested by accident, there is very little hope for anybody else. I am referring to Alice Chambers, who said that she tried desperately to tell the police that she was not with the group of Just Stop Oil protesters as she waited to watch the coronation on The Mall. She was repeatedly questioned over 13 hours, subject to physical searches, held in a cell and had her DNA, fingerprints and mugshot taken, before the Met finally realised that she was nothing but an innocent bystander. She said that it was not until two senior officers interviewed her at 7 pm, more than 10 hours after she was arrested, that they finally acknowledged they had made a mistake. As far as I am aware, she is yet to receive an apology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I want to finish this point, if that is okay with the hon. Member.

Ms Chambers, an Australian national, says that she has lived in the UK for seven years and was told she would face no further action by the police, but she does not yet know exactly what impact this will have on her right to live in the UK, because her arrest on suspicion of a criminal offence will remain on her record on the police national computer, and she is required to make an application supported by evidence to have the record removed. I ask the Minister, what happens to people in these circumstances? This could affect many people under question who would have the right to remain in the UK. I know of people who have gone through a red light or committed some other minor offence and have not been not allowed to stay, so somebody arrested under this Act could well find that that has a negative impact on their ability to stay in the UK.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, and therefore I will share with her a guilty secret: 41 years ago, I was arrested for mounting a noisy counter-protest against a CND-sponsored demonstration against the Falklands taskforce that was on its way to the South Atlantic. The police recognised that they had gone a bit far. Nevertheless, when we did future rooftop counter-demonstrations, they would monitor the amount of noise we made and tell us, “You go above that noise, and we’ll confiscate your equipment and possibly arrest you. You keep within reasonable bounds, and you can carry on.” Does she accept that there are ways of protesting that do not involve disrupting everybody else but get the case across, and that is how it should be?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am glad to find that somebody on the Government Benches has protested against something before. It must be true that you get more conservative as you get older. The difficulty with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making is that, with reference to the offence of locking on, the Act talks about “serious disruption” to “two or more individuals”. That is a very, very low bar to set for disruption. When it comes to noisy protest, people are trying to make a noise—they are trying to draw attention to their cause. Restricting that in any way makes that incredibly difficult.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

I would like to make some progress.

The point of protest is to attract attention to a cause, and the more difficult it is to attract attention to a cause, the more it undermines the very principle of that protest in the first place. One of my hon. Friends was talking earlier about somebody who was making a racket outside this building. That is not counted as a noisy protest, but it is quite disruptive. There are all kinds of things in life that we have to put up with and deal with. We have to be grown-ups and be able to deal with a noisy protest; that is quite fair.

National Security Bill

Debate between Julian Lewis and Alison Thewliss

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My right hon. and gallant Friend underlines my point, which is that, in proving damage has been done, the mere fact of displaying why something has been damaging can increase the damage and adverse impact by many multiples.

Both Front Benchers focused on Lords amendment 22, on foreign interference in elections, and Lords amendment 122, on the duty to update the MOU of the ISC. Like Admiral Lord West, who spoke in favour of Lords amendment 22 on the ISC’s behalf, I firmly support the introduction of the proposed new clause, which would help to increase the transparency and accountability of our political system. The ISC’s Russia report of 2020 recognised that the UK has clearly welcomed Russian money, including in the political sphere. It found that several members of the Russian elite with close links to Putin have been identified as being involved with political organisations in the UK, including by making large donations to political parties. That clause would require a UK-registered political party to create a policy statement, and to provide the Electoral Commission with an annual statement of risk management, identifying how risks relating to donations from a foreign power are being managed to ensure such donations are properly identified. This should not be controversial, and it is still not clear, despite the Minister’s best efforts, why the Government would wish to oppose that clause. Indeed, the Government said in the other place that the current electoral finance legislation is sufficient.

Several Lords also noted that, unlike companies or charities, political parties do not have to examine the source of the funds they receive. As those Lords explained, that means it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant donations to political parties despite clearly not making operating profits—so with limited explanation of how they can afford such donations or where the money comes from. That means that, unlike companies and charities, there is no enhanced due diligence even when a donor is operating from a high-risk country listed in terrorism-financing or money-laundering legislation.

As was also suggested in the other place, incorporating this modest amendment would mean that political parties develop a culture of knowing their donor, just as companies, particularly financial and legal entities, are required to know their customer. It is entirely appropriate for political parties to do more to determine the source of donations. The additional measures proposed would not be over-onerous. Lords amendment 22 is eminently reasonable, and it should not be controversial for political parties to want to ensure the transparency of their foreign political donations. We must protect against covert, foreign state-backed financial donations if we are to defend our democratic institutions from harmful interference and influence.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I absolutely agree that we should be guarding against this. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree there is also a problem with incorporated associations that donate money? It is very difficult to trace where the money has come from, despite the efforts of organisations such as openDemocracy.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I agree that it will always be difficult to man the defences sufficiently against people who apply great ingenuity and unscrupulousness in finding their way around such defences. Perhaps we should bear in mind—I say this in the context of British politics, rather than anywhere else—that, so long as we have an adversarial political system, parties that accept what we might dub “dirty donations” will be found out if their opponents are doing their job properly; or if they are not absolutely proven to have accepted money from unacceptable sources, they will still suffer general reputational damage that will not do them any favours when people cast their vote. It is very much in the interest of political parties to make sure their funds come from clean and acceptable sources.

In turning to Lords amendment 122, on the duty to update the Intelligence and Security Committee’s memorandum of understanding, I can almost hear an under-the-radar groan in the Chamber because this subject keeps coming back in one Bill after another. It featured prominently during our consideration of the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and I fear this will continue until the matter is resolved. People might be forgiven for saying, “Isn’t this all a bit unimportant, a bit introspective and a bit self-regarding of the Intelligence and Security Committee?” In our defence in insisting that the matter needs to be sorted out, I quote none other than Lord Butler of Brockwell, who, as Robin Butler, was one of the most revered Cabinet Secretaries in recent political history. In the debate on the matter in the House of Lords, he said that “the consequence” of the way the Government have been behaving

“is that in recent times the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has not been used for the purpose for which it was set up.

If the Government are not going to use the Intelligence and Security Committee properly, they should save money and abolish it. But, of course, they will not do that because Parliament set it up, Parliament thinks it is important that this House and the House of Commons should have some insight into intelligence operations, and it would be unacceptable for the Government to abolish it. But they must choose either to abolish it or to use it properly. If they are to use it properly, they must update the memorandum of understanding and, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said, use it for the purpose for which Parliament intended: to give oversight by people who are fully screened within the ring of secrecy to report to Parliament. I think this is a much more important amendment than the face of it suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2023; Vol. 828, c. 745-46.]

When someone of Lord Butler’s stature makes those remarks, we can be justified in continuing to focus attention on this matter.