Public Order Bill (Fourth sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think that the psyche of the protesters we are talking about, as we have said many times, means that they will not be deterred by legislation generally. The argument we keep making is that we do not want to over-criminalise people who are going about their business, making a protest that nobody would have a problem with. Our amendments are designed to tighten the clause and improve its scope.

Lee Anderson Portrait Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Is there a timescale on preventing something? It strikes me that “prevents” could be more destructive than “interferes with”.

Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are talking about key national infrastructure and whether the use or operation of any key national infrastructure is interfered with or prevented. If an oil refinery is being blocked—we would argue that there is already plenty of legislation in place to deal with those protesters—that would clearly prevent the operation of key national infrastructure. That is the point of our three amendments. On this occasion, I will not test the will of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.