Crime and Policing Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I agree that some protests can feel intimidating. On the Palestine protests, people have never protested outside synagogues, and they do not protest outside mosques. Given the proper police protections that already exist, there is no reason for the Jewish community to feel intimidated. But the fact is that this goes far beyond the Jewish community, for all the reasons that I have outlined.

It was said in the past that we should not protest again and again for women’s right to vote, or for trade unions to win their rights against unscrupulous employers. In their name, and in the name of the whole Labour movement, Lords amendment 312 ought to be rejected.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

There are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, the exploitation of children, and appalling sexual offences. However, Lords amendment 312, which was introduced in the other place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties.

It is incumbent on all Members to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine, the health of our democracy. On this occasion, however, we have had next to no evidence whatsoever, because these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of the Bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy.

Lords amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, the suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow crusade—these were protest movements and campaigns of direct action that were supported and led by giants of our party, and which we should celebrate, not disown. They were advancing Labour’s historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo, so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. Lords amendment 312 contradicts that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the vested interests that we ought to take on.

The corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policymaking and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests, or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, that would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents. Today, Lords amendment 312 is opposed across the Labour movement and civil society by many organisations that share the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour Government. That is hardly surprising, given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

It is widely drawn, with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It does not define the area in question or the timeframe, and it has the blindingly obvious potential to be abused.

The proposals could easily be used to restrict protests simply because they are considered inconvenient due to their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, this may place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers. I want to address the concerns raised by several hon. Members in this debate about the intimidation of specific minority groups. I do understand those concerns and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly enough to address that problem. It is far too vague and far too broad to coherently address that point, and it is not what we will achieve by passing this amendment.

Finally, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside the recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested proscription and other legislation that I assume means that any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the Government that they hold the right to protest sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent. The case for Lords amendment 312 has not been made, we should not be asked to vote for it en bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect those on the Front Benches will be communicating that message to their Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I cannot tell whether my right hon. Friend will have to hand himself in at some point in time. I think probably not, but I can remember debating that particular issue when the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he was going to lie down in front of bulldozers. We have debated these issues on protests many, many times. Guidance does not normally come to this House for approval. That would not be appropriate. I need to stress that the police take the definition as it is, in terms of its natural meaning, but I take the point. The point is that we need to ensure that we get these things right, and I will work with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on getting this right. I would also ask the House that, when Lord Macdonald has looked at this plethora of emerging legislation, we should consider that and look at what he recommends. Of course, if he recommends that we accept changes to the law, we will debate those things in the proper way in this House if we introduce that legislation.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Can I just seek clarity from the Minister? If Lord Macdonald comes forward with recommendations to go back in the opposite direction, will the Government then consider those and remove the restrictions they are currently proposing?

[Sarah Jones]

We do not know what Lord Macdonald is going to recommend. He has terms of reference that we have agreed, which are to look at public order legislation and hate crime legislation and to consider whether it is fit for purpose or whether it needs amending. Of course, we will consider carefully whatever he brings forward and we will act according to what we think is right. He is a man of great note who has done a lot of things in his past—he is a former Director of Public Prosecutions—and we will of course listen to whatever he says.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that the question is about the Mayor of London and police closures? We have allowed a little bit of leeway. Let us see how we go from here and try to stick to the questions before us.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department's policies of the approval under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between April and June 2025 of the use of 1,656,930 animals over the next five years.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Department takes its responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act extremely seriously. Approvals for the use of animals in science are given only when no alternatives exist and where the scientific benefit justifies the potential harm. The Government will soon publish a strategy on how we will work towards phasing out the use of animals in science.

[Chris Hinchliff]

More than 1.6 million animals have been approved for testing over the next five years, including through licences for invasive brain research on monkeys and for looking at different methods of killing animals in laboratories. Labour’s manifesto committed to phasing out animal testing. Can the Minister reassure me that the non-animal methods strategy will commit to Herbie’s law and provide a clear framework for phasing out animal experiments within the next decade?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. Herbie’s law is a proposed legislative framework to phase out animal experiments, specifically in medical research, in the UK by 2035. The Government’s commitment is clear: we will partner with scientists, industry and civil society to work towards a long-term goal of phasing out the use of animals in scientific research and testing. I will ensure that he receives a letter from the relevant Minister.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely acknowledge that the concerns the hon. Member has expressed are entirely genuine and well-meaning. I hope he understands the importance that we attach to the rule of law. We do not think that people should be excepted from the rule of law because they are of a particular age, have a disability or have a particular professional background. That would be entirely unfair. Nobody is above the law. The police have a difficult job to do to police these protests. I gently say to him that the protests we saw over the weekend were not entirely peaceful, with 33 other arrests, including 17 for assaults on police officers. I hope that none of us wants to see that activity in our capital, or anywhere else for that matter.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his answers, and I fully agree that there can be no place for violence in our politics. However, does he accept that elderly retired priests and disabled veterans would not be protesting in the way they are if they genuinely believed that Palestine Action was a similar organisation to ISIS or al-Qaeda? Can he provide any additional guidance or advice on how members of the public can legitimately protest against the proscription of this organisation?

[Dan Jarvis]

First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that neither the Government nor I are seeking to make the comparison he offers. What we do believe is that people should follow the law. It is a criminal offence to seek to support a proscribed group. The police are doing the job of ensuring the law is enforced. Again, I make the comparison that if it were people protesting about other organisations—extreme right-wing ideological or Islamist organisations—then certain commentators, not in this place but outside it, would seek to view the matter in a different way. We have to be even-handed and fair, and that is what we have sought to be.