Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec.

I will start by talking briefly about the underlying issue of animal testing, before making more general comments about restrictions on the right to protest. I think I am right in saying that the only commitment made in the 1997 general election manifesto that was not implemented by the Blair Government was the pledge to establish a royal commission on vivisection, which was scuppered by opposition from the life sciences sector. As I recall, they justified their stance by saying that if there were more transparency around what scientists were doing, they would be at personal risk. As I understand it, one of the reasons we are here today is to consider restrictions on the right to protest about animal testing. I want to make it clear from the outset that I totally condemn any abuse or harassment of individuals working in the sector, but laws are already in place to deal with that. Indeed, some activists, whose behaviour in the past went far beyond the pale, are currently serving very long prison sentences as a result.

I welcome the Government’s publication of the road map for phasing out animal testing, but I am sad that so much time has been wasted since 1997—time with which we could have made progress—and that so many millions of animals have suffered as a result. I am not opposed to all animal testing, but I believe that the vast majority of experiments are unnecessary, ineffective and inhumane, for reasons that I think my hon. Friends will set out. I hope to see the day when we have developed humane alternatives to all animal testing, so that it ends.

To give one example, I have in recent years met scientists at the University of Bristol in a bid to stop them using the forced-swim test. They were looking at the stress that mice experienced when drowning, and whether giving them antidepressants made them feel a bit more zen about the whole thing. The scientists told me that they had done that test over and over again, but had yet to observe anything interesting. That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I am very glad that there is a moratorium on that test now.

In 2015, I attended a meeting in the Commons at which the main speakers were Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, and the eminent zoologist Professor Michael Balls, father of Ed. It was a rather unlikely pairing, but they were joining forces to call for an end to beagle breeding for the purposes of animal experiments. A decade later, the sector involved in testing on beagles is still calling for more time to find replacements. I just do not think that that is acceptable. We need to shine a light on what is happening and question whether such tests are needed. I grew up seeing images of beagles with cigarettes strapped to their mouths to test the effects of smoking. That has rightly been stopped, but I do not think that the public realises that testing on beagles—indeed, testing on dogs—continues.

To what extent will these measures, if implemented, prevent peaceful protest against animal testing? If Will Young—whom I have also heard speaking in Parliament about MBR Acres—was thinking of peacefully handcuffing himself to the fence at MBR Acres once again, would the Minister think he’d “better leave right now”? [Laughter.] Thank you. Somebody was going to make that gag— I thought it might as well be me.

Let me turn to the more general issue. I fiercely defend the right to protest. I am a Bristol MP; we have quite a reputation for it. I went out to Russia under my own steam to observe the end of the Pussy Riot trial, and the powerful speeches from Nadya, Maria and Katya from their cage in the courtroom. However, I accept that there should be limitations to the right to protest. I accept that we cannot have the country grinding to a halt; we must appreciate the impact on people’s lives, and sometimes protesters do not.

A few years ago, a protest by Extinction Rebellion in Bristol blocked the M32, causing a five-mile queue. I remember vividly that there was a woman in a car in that queue who was in labour, trying to get to hospital, and her husband ran to the front of the queue. One of the activists was quoted in the press as saying, “It’s all right, we allowed her through.” I thought it was quite shocking that they should feel entitled to give somebody in labour permission to get to hospital.

I have also defended the Government’s plans to curb the cumulative impact of protests. We have a number of hotels housing asylum seekers in Bristol, and of course people should have the right to express their views—however much I might disagree with some of them—but it is not right that people are targeted week after week, and that the communities around them have to live in fear of possibly violent protests. I accept that; and I have defended that, but I also believe that people have the right to choose to break the law. However, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.

I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes “key national infrastructure”. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres, is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing. The fact that we do not know what tests are being carried out makes it rather more difficult to make such judgments, so I return to my earlier point: transparency about what testing is going on is important—the public have a right to know.

Transparency is also important when it comes to business in this place. We should not seek to place limitations on fundamental democratic rights—in this case, the right to protest—through a small Committee such as this. I therefore ask the Minister to facilitate at the very least a deferred Division on the motion, so that all MPs may vote, but ideally we would have a proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that

“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”

That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.

Asylum Policy

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his desire for certainty. What I can say is that we expect to complete the reform in early 2025, with further staging posts to come. We are, of course, carefully monitoring the implementation through the period of delivering the initial increase. It is right that we go about it in that incremental way to give certainty to people.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T7. In Bristol, we have sadly seen a number of young people killed by knife crime in the last few weeks. We have a Conservative police and crime commissioner, but unlike the Minister I have no desire to party politicise this. What is he doing to work with the Department for Education to ensure schools are involved in trying to lead the fight against knife crime and young people getting involved, whether as victims or perpetrators?

[Chris Philp]

The Youth Endowment Fund, led by Jon Yates, has received a £200 million endowment. Its mission is to work with young people—and that includes working with schools in the way that the hon. Lady has described —to identify the most effective interventions that could stop young people getting on to the wrong track, a track that can often have tragic consequences. The youth endowment fund is working with violence reduction units in the 20 police force areas most affected, which are spending £55 million a year, to make the necessary interventions, for instance in schools, to keep our young people safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We liaise very closely with other Government Departments to ensure that our system, which is transparent and fair, also supports the British economy. We work particularly closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those who have talent and ambition but who, for whatever reason, are currently unable to fully engage in the job market are enabled to do so. I myself have a background in the hospitality industry, and we want that industry to continue to thrive. It is not the case that we should automatically rely on overseas labour for that; we can have home-grown talent as well.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary talked about people coming to UK universities to study. Many people also come to our universities to carry out ground-breaking and economically important research, and they are worried about the rise in the minimum income thresholds, because that means they will be unable to bring their families with them. What assessment has he made of the impact of the new changes on our universities’ important research work?

[James Cleverly]

We recognise the contribution of the international pool of talent. Indeed, when I was Foreign Secretary I signed up to a deal with India for talented postgraduates to exchange experience in our respective countries. We will always look to support the genuine draw on talent, but we will also ensure that the higher education system is not used as a back-door means of immigration. The system is about research and education, not a back-door means of getting permanent residence in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think it has been widely reported that the Home Secretary was making a joke about not being good enough for his wife. The point is that we are the first Government who have done something about spiking—it is not a new offence, and the measures to change the statutory provisions in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could have been taken by the last Labour Government. The reason we have sought to clarify the matter in law is that we do not think that enough victims are coming forward, and the reason there are not enough prosecutions is the time lag in getting effective toxicology reports. That is why we are investing so much money in rapid drinks testing kits, so that hopefully we will be able to get the test done on site on the night, and get more of those offenders behind bars.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

This year, the Home Office will continue to build on our progress on the public priorities: a 36% fall in small boat crossings last year, 86 arrests of small boat pilots, 246 arrests of people smugglers, the biggest-ever international operation resulting in 136 boat seizures and 45 outboard motors being seized, the illegal migration package announced, more than 2,000 county lines drugs lines smashed and the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill to give police leaders more powers. We are relentlessly focused on delivering community safety on behalf of the British people.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Now that we have the Home Secretary here to answer for himself, can he tell us whether he is aware that the police are receiving more than 560 reports of spiking every month, and in December the Home Office said that the reason the crime is so prevalent is that it is seen as funny and a joke? How can we have any confidence in the Home Secretary to deliver action on spiking when he thinks it is a joke?

[James Cleverly]

I am the Home Secretary who has actually introduced action on this. In my first week in the job, I visited Holborn police station to see the work of the Metropolitan police in tackling violence against women and girls. I made it clear to the Home Office that my priority was the protection of women and girls. I am taking action on this issue, and I am absolutely determined to continue doing so.

Illegal Immigration

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I would caution the House against grasping for silver-bullet solutions. Sometimes, the most effective Government policy is just focus and graft. I assure the House that the Home Office, and the Ministers and officials within it, will be relentlessly focused on the daily work that needs to be done to address this issue. Of course we will look at what changes we need to make to operationalise the Rwanda scheme, but I urge people against grasping for silver-bullet solutions, which are rarely effective.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Rwanda scheme is callous, inhumane and ineffective; one might say the same about the former Home Secretary. That is why I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post, on the grounds that he could not possibly be any worse. I hope that he will consider the ethical dimension of this issue, since the Court has just ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country. Even if he does not, does he not agree that the scheme is simply not workable? It is not a good use of money, and it will take a huge amount of effort to get to a place where anyone is sent to Rwanda. Are there not much better ways of pursuing this issue and destroying the small boats model?

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

What is immoral is the position that the Lib Dems have taken in this whole debate. By opposing our humanitarian plans to save lives and stop the people-smuggling gangs, they have put themselves on the same side as the criminal people-smuggling gangs and as open borders. That is what is not moral. That is not what will save lives, and that is not what will stop the boats.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Let us be clear: we all want to see an end to the small boat crossings, and it is wrong of the Home Secretary to try to mischaracterise the Labour position on that front. But the Rwanda policy—if we can call it a policy—was never going to make sufficient inroads into the number of people seeking asylum here to make any difference at all. As the shadow Home Secretary said, it is political hyperbole and it is a total con. I ask the Home Secretary again—and this time, perhaps she will not try to make me answer the question—what is her plan if Rwanda is not an opportunity for the Government to address the issue?

[Suella Braverman]

It is not over yet. This is a Court of Appeal judgment. We have made it clear that we are seeking permission to appeal it, and we will await the outcome of the next level in the process and the next decision from the courts. It is premature to assume that this is the end of the policy. We maintain a high level of confidence in the lawfulness of the policy. We are committed to delivering it and to working in partnership with Rwanda.

Police Conduct and David Carrick

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the groundbreaking work she did when she was in government to support women and girls and their safety. She is absolutely right, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister is committed to introducing the victims Bill. I am particularly supportive of increasing the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers as they have made a huge difference to the experience of victims going through the criminal justice system. They can make the difference between a victim withdrawing and a victim persisting and reaching a conviction. I therefore think that, yes, putting through more resources and introducing important legislation is vital.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, when the Education Secretary was asked on the radio if the Government could say that women could trust the police, she replied:

“It’s very important that we do trust the police.”

I think that is a no. We cannot have a situation where women who would ordinarily turn to the police to rescue them from dangerous situations—whether out on the street, domestic violence or as the victim of abuse—feel that they cannot trust the person from whom they might seek help and that they might be violated by them. I endorse what everyone has said about needing to address the culture in the police force, but will the Home Secretary set out a timetable and tell us what immediate action she will take to address that, so that women who are in danger feel that they can look to the police for support?

[Suella Braverman]

I am the first person to say that this is obviously a disappointing, frustrating, sobering and chilling day for policing. It is regrettable and shameful that this has happened. I would also say that poorly behaved and criminal police officers are a minority and that we have tens of thousands of very brave, dedicated men and women all over the country who will be feeling the equivalent level of shame and disgust that we are expressing. This is not in their name. This is about changing the system to root out poor behaviour and so that everybody can be proud to be serving in our police force.

Commercial Breeding for Laboratories

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition. I know there was some anxiety among them that we would not do justice to it today, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for doing it more than justice. There appears to be a degree of consensus in the room, and I hope the Minister does not let us down at the end of the debate but indicates the way forward.

Breeding animals solely for the purpose of animal testing all too often condemns them to a life of suffering, culminating in a painful death. As we have heard, conditions in such breeding facilities have been shown to be unhygienic and cruel, with the animals exhibiting signs of extreme stress and frustration. That is just in the breeding facilities, and we know that the animals then go on to the laboratory, where who knows what they will have to endure. I do not want to repeat the stats and everything my colleagues have said, but I do want to endorse the point that the three Rs are clearly not working as they should, particularly when it comes to replacing animals in testing.

I do not think we will see a “big bang” moment at which animal testing just stops, so I want to focus on the five incremental steps where swift progress is possible. There is really no excuse not to act. First, we know that not all animal experiments are conducted for the purposes of medical research; many animals are still used in the development and testing of products such as food additives and pesticides. At one uni, researchers tested cannabis on, I think, rats to see whether it gave them the munchies—given that they were based at a university, I do not think they really needed to test on animals to come to a conclusion on that! After the ban on using animals for cosmetics testing, and the more recent ban on using them to test household products, will the Minister tell us what is next? Let us keep moving the issue forward.

Secondly, the Government could restrict the types of tests that are licensed. Colleagues of a similar age to me will remember the campaign to outlaw the infamous Draize test, whereby toxic substances were dripped into the eyes, or on to the skin, of healthy rabbits. I have recently had several robust discussions with Bristol University about its use of the forced swim test on mice to induce anxiety, fear and stress—all to collect data of questionable quality. That raises another point, which has come up in some of the figures that have been mentioned: is scientific curiosity a good enough reason to carry out endless tests on animals that do not actually yield results? Surely they should be used only when trying to reach a conclusion, not just out of curiosity.

Thirdly, the Government could build on the success of the primate testing ban by restricting the range of animals that can be tested on. As we have heard, MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire continues to breed 2,000 beagles each year, solely for animal testing. Beagles, as opposed to other dogs, are favoured for this kind of toxicity testing precisely because of their docile, compliant nature. They are either injected or force-fed poisonous chemicals, and they are asphyxiated before an autopsy is conducted to assess the effects on them. Dogs bred for testing have also been forced to inhale pesticides or have been deliberately given heart attacks. We have also heard that cats, horses and monkeys are still being used. I do not think any of my constituents would support the continued testing on beagles, and we could have a quick win on this issue if we outlawed that.

[Alexander Stafford]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, especially on the types of animals being used. It is abhorrent not only that dogs such as beagles and others, and horses, are used but that, as we have heard, they are increasingly being used. Some 3% more dogs, and more than 20% more horses, have been tested on this year. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with the physiology of these animals being so different from that of humans, we should not be increasing the number of dogs and horses that we are testing on? Does she agree that we should ban testing on dogs and horses?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree.

Fourthly, we could reduce the number of licences issued by simply encouraging greater transparency. We have heard about section 24 of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that from 2018 to 2021, every licence that was applied for was granted, but we need to know the figures; they need to be out in the public domain.

We also need to avoid duplication. I know that commercial interests come into play, but, particularly with the UK leaving REACH—the EU’s chemicals regulatory regime—there is a real danger that we could end up with even more tests having to be carried out when they are already being done elsewhere. I know that campaigners and scientists have called for data sharing, but it is just not happening.

Again, the Government have been very slow to respond. The Environmental Audit Committee did an inquiry into chemicals regulation post Brexit, which was notable mainly because the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), suggested that the British version of REACH should be called BREACH, which would not be ideal for a regulator. I hope the Minister can say a little about that.

My fifth and final point relates to what everyone has been saying about the development of NAMs and alternatives. I will not rehearse the arguments that have already been made about effectiveness, but I have certainly spoken about how effective animal testing is, as opposed to the non-animal methods that are being developed. Queen Mary University of London has set up its own unit. When I spoke to scientists who are involved in that, it was clear that there are real experts in the field who support a move away from animal testing and do not think it is effective. I will conclude on that point.

As I said, I am not expecting the Minister to say today that she is going to declare an end to animal testing. We want to see the three Rs—which have been Labour policy for a long time—being properly enforced, and I have suggested some ways in which she could make some progress in that regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a multi-agency and community approach. Yes, of course, the police are responsible for tackling and dealing with antisocial behaviour, which is why we are providing £695 million funding to West Midlands police, an increase of £40 million. The force has also been able to recruit over 1,000 additional officers. It is also the case that we have provided the police with additional powers. It is vital that the police work with their local police and crime commissioner and other agencies with responsibility for tackling this behaviour.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In Bristol, we have a successful e-scooter rental pilot, but we also see people using e-scooters illegally and using rental e-scooters on the pavement. That can be very scary for people trying to walk along the pavement while that is happening. I know the Government are looking to legalise and regulate private ownership, but how will the Home Office team work with the Department for Transport team to ensure the police have the powers to stop them being misused in a way that scares people who are just trying to go about their daily business?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady speaks of an issue that both she and I have some experience of—when I was in the Department for Transport, she was my shadow. The Department is introducing new legislation to deal with some of these issues. Until that is on the statute book, however, it is the responsibility of the police to deal with the issue, and they have clear guidance: riding an e-scooter on the pavement is illegal in all circumstances. We welcome new forms of transport, but of course they must be introduced safely and ridden responsibly.

Public Order Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

The point I was trying to make was to echo the concerns that the police have expressed about the expectation on them to go and do things on private land, the cost associated with that, and the need to deal with that issue. To reiterate, they have said that they think there are already suitable powers for them to stop people when they are committing a criminal act, which we agree tunnelling is. They have said they do not need this extra power. There is also criminal damage, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, so there are different forms of offences that we can look to.

With regard to the new powers, there is also the issue of training. According to the Police Foundation, over the seven years up to 2017-18, 33 forces reduced their budgeted spending on training in real terms by a greater percentage than their overall reduction in spending. Some 40% of police officers say they did not receive the necessary training to do their job, so I am concerned that many things in the Bill, particularly the new clauses, need to go along with properly resourced training to make sure that people understand and know what the new powers are. We have talked about the complexities of introducing new laws and expecting the police to understand them all many times before, not least with all the covid legislation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is something that has been bothering me. As I have said before, I was with the police in the operation centre when they were looking at protests in Bristol. Part of the briefing before protests involves telling the police what offences might be committed, what to look for and so on. We have a plethora of offences, and they have to make judgments on whether something is a serious disruption. The more complex it is, the more difficult it will be for the police to know what they are supposed to do when they are out on the streets in a very difficult situation.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that perfect point. This is the challenge that policing has, and we have seen it with the recruitment of new officers as well. We need to make sure that everybody has the right training and understands the legal routes that they can use, and piling new and complex legislation on top of what we think is satisfactory legislation is problematic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come on to talk about that in my later remarks.

Lord Kennedy, in the Lords, said:

“the Government are mirroring laws that currently exist for serious violence and knife crime.”

He went on to say that

“these measures apply to peaceful protesters, not people carrying knives or causing violence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 992-993.]

Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector, said that current suspicionless stop and search powers

“are intended to be used by the police to combat serious violence and the carriage of ‘dangerous instruments or offensive weapons’. Using a similar suspicion-less power to target peaceful protesters, who may cause serious (but non-violent) disruption, is a significantly different proposition. Given the potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of assembly and expression in terms of discouraging people from attending protests where they may be stopped and searched, we would expect any new suspicion-less powers to be subject to very careful scrutiny by the courts.”

In the same document, it was said that

“police officers highlighted operational difficulties in the targeted use of the power. Others were also concerned over the proportionality of any search as well as the potentially intrusive nature when looking for small items.

One officer reflected that the proposal had ‘complications’ – for instance, whether an otherwise innocuous items was really intended to be used to lock-on. He said that having a tube of superglue in your pocket, or chain and padlock that you intend to use to lock your bike, ‘doesn’t prove intent and presents difficulties’.”

[Kerry McCarthy]

Concern about that has been expressed in Bristol. There are a lot of cyclists in Bristol and many who would be carrying bike locks around with them. College Green is the area where people tend to congregate if there is going to be a march or a protest. However, there would be an awful lot of people in that area who might well be carrying things that, if the police wanted to be difficult, might put them under suspicion. Does my hon. Friend share my concern? [Interruption.] I do not quite know how it works if I am intervening. I am intervening on my shadow Minister, not the Minister.

[The Chair]

The Minister will have the opportunity to have his say at the end of this discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

To give one example, a few years ago there was a protest in Bristol that involved people blocking the road by sitting and laying their bicycles down in it. That would potentially mean that they would have bike locks on them and could be subject to stop and search, would it not?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. I urge colleagues to read the powers in clause 6. They are very clear and broad.

When Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services consulted police on the Home Office’s proposal for a new stop-and-search power, one officer said that

“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state.”

That was a police officer speaking. HMICFRS went on to state that it agreed with that sentiment.

As I have said already, stop and search is a useful tool. It is important in preventing crime. But it is an invasive power and can be counterproductive and undermine the legitimacy of and trust in policing if it is not used correctly. Rightly, it is designed to be used to prevent the most serious crime—knife crime, or drug dealing—and the police themselves have recognised serious concerns about disproportionality and that those who are black are much more likely to be stopped and searched than those who are white.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The amendments, I am afraid, are a deliberate attempt to water down the courts’ ability to place an SDPO on those who are intent on repeatedly disrupting the lives of others, as we have talked about a lot during our consideration of the Bill. Amendments 38 and 39 attempt to raise the burden of proof required for SDPOs from

“on the balance of probabilities”

to “beyond reasonable doubt”, in effect requiring the criminal rather than the civil standard of proof. Amendment 38 raises the burden of proof required when considering whether an offence constitutes a protest-related offence for the purpose of making a serious disruption prevention order. Amendment 39 does the same when a court considers whether a person has engaged, in the last five years, in previous behaviour that would qualify them for an SDPO.

The amendments would make it more challenging for a court to place an SDPO on prolific activists who engage in criminal or unjustifiable behaviour. As this is a court order, I see no issue with requiring the civil burden of proof. The Opposition have shown much enthusiasm for injunctions, which operate to a civil burden of proof, and the same burden would be required here. For the avoidance of doubt, for someone to be convicted for breaching an SDPO, the criminal burden of proof would apply.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I want to query the Minister’s use of the phrase “unjustifiable behaviour”. What would that cover?

[Kit Malthouse]

We have discussed the range of offences that offenders commit. In presenting the requirement for this order to a court, the police would have to make a case that a series of offences had occurred, or indeed that serious disruption had been caused by the individuals’ behaviour, to warrant this order. We will come on to the substance of those matters, and we can debate it at that point. For the reasons I have given, we do not agree with the amendment, and we hope that the hon. Member will withdraw it.