Public Order Act 2023 Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Public Order Act 2023

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts
Tuesday 16th May 2023

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady is making a powerful argument about the effect on innocent bystanders. The Public Order Act; the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; voter ID—the list of anti-democratic laws passed by the Conservatives grows longer and longer, and there will be many innocent bystanders affected. The Tories have not won a general election in Wales for well over 150 years, and these laws therefore have no mandate from the people of Wales. My party wants to create a fairer justice system that truly serves our people. I am sure she agrees that if justice were devolved to Wales, as is the case in Scotland, many of these authoritarian new laws would never be able to be applied by this Government in Wales.

Alison Thewliss Portrait Alison Thewliss
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I absolutely agree with the point that the right hon. Lady is making on behalf of the people of Wales who are affected by this Act.

The point about innocent bystanders—

--- Later in debate ---
Chris Philp Portrait Chris Philp
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes two very good points, both of which pre-empt what I was going to say, but let me come to the official Opposition. They obviously voted against the Bill on Third Reading and at various other stages during its passage, yet the Leader of the Opposition, just a week or two ago, said that he now did not favour its immediate repeal and wanted to see how it beds in. I do not know how the Opposition will vote today. It is of course entirely possible that there will be another U-turn, although I must say that two U-turns in three weeks is quite a lot even by the standards of the Leader of the Opposition, so we will have to see what they actually do.

On the wider point my hon. Friend makes, I completely agree. We on the Government side of the House of course accept that peaceful protest is a fundamental human right. We of course accept the article 10 and article 11 rights, and this Act is compliant with those obligations. However, when it comes to people who are not simply protesting, but deliberately and intentionally setting out to disrupt the lives of their fellow citizens in a way that is deliberate and planned—for example by gluing themselves to a road surface, dangling themselves from a gantry over the M25 or walking slowly down a busy road—they are not protesting, but deliberately disrupting the lives of their fellow citizens. We say that that is not fair and is not reasonable. We say that that goes too far, and I believe the British people agree with us. It sounds as though the Opposition may do so as well these days, but that seems to change from one week to the next.

Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Liz Saville Roberts
- Hansard - -

Somebody has got to say it: how does the Minister respond to the fact that I as a woman am here as an MP in the House of Commons only because of people having undertaken very disruptive protests?

Chris Philp Portrait Chris Philp
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course, the suffragettes, at the time they were protesting, did not have the vote and were not represented in Parliament. These days, we have a universal franchise, and everybody over the age of 18 who is a citizen is entitled to vote and stand for Parliament in a way that the suffragettes could not. That is the fundamental difference between the suffragettes and adults in this country today. People who are deliberately disrupting the lives of citizens are seeking to achieve by disruption and direct action what they cannot achieve by argument and democratic election, and that is wrong.