Debates between Chris Philp and Mhairi Black during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Public Order Act 2023

Debate between Chris Philp and Mhairi Black
Tuesday 16th May 2023

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp Portrait Chris Philp
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right. The concept that the right to protest does not extend to disrupting other people is one that other countries accept, and indeed article 11.2 of the ECHR, a text Opposition Members hold in very high regard, expressly concedes on the rights to protest that

“the exercise of these rights”

cannot exceed levels that are

“prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime”.

So the ECHR itself recognises that the law may impose constraints and restrictions on the right to freedom of assembly and association, or indeed the article 10 right to freedom of expression, in order for the prevention of crime,

“for the protection of health or morals”

and so on and so forth. It is recognised that these are limited rights in the way my right hon. Friend has eloquently described.

Mhairi Black Portrait Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to check that I heard the Minister correctly a few minutes ago when he talked about people walking slowly down streets being covered by this Act. This building is filled with long and narrow corridors, so if I am stuck behind somebody should I phone the police?

Chris Philp Portrait Chris Philp
- Hansard - -

There are statutory definitions of what serious disruption constitutes. Slow walking is actually covered by section 12 of Public Order Act 1986 and is nothing to do with the Public Order Act 2023. In answer to the question, unless serious disruption is being caused, no, that would not be a matter for the police.