Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jake Richards and Steve Witherden

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on protecting the right to protest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that this important matter falls under the remit of the Home Secretary, with whom I am in full agreement that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. However, peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. Should a protest contravene the law, the police have the powers to respond, and such behaviour will be met with appropriate consequences.

[Steve Witherden]

Proposals to restrict the right to protest based on “cumulative disruption” are causing great concern. It is absurd that a march by an anti-racist group one week could be blocked because an anti-abortion march occurred the week before, and that this power could be extended across large parts of a city. Such a significant change demands proper scrutiny. This House must have adequate time to debate and vote on this issue. Can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that?

[Jake Richards]

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. If my hon. Friend seeks parliamentary time for a debate, he should come to business questions on Thursday morning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jake Richards and Steve Witherden

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I do accept that there are issues with remand, which are caused by the huge backlog in the court system which this Government are trying to fix. I look forward to seeing the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Green party support our proposals when they are introduced next month by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman).

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Members on both sides of the House share my deep concern about the Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has already been dealt with in Committee and which would restrict the right to protest on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. Does the Minister not agree that, given the significance of that proposal and its serious implications for our fundamental right to protest, it is essential that the House has sufficient time in which to scrutinise, debate and vote on it? Can he give me that assurance?

[Jake Richards]

That piece of legislation is going through the House, as it should. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the important right to protest and the protection enabling communities and groups to lead their lives with no trepidation or stifling, and I believe that the amendment strikes that balance.