The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 8 February. “With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall
make a Statement on new government measures to tackle unacceptable
behaviour at protests. In the aftermath of the horrific attacks on
7 October, many people took to the streets to make their views
heard. Many did so peacefully and respectfully. I had the great
privilege of marching alongside many people, including some in this
House, against...Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 8 February.
“With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall make a Statement on
new government measures to tackle unacceptable behaviour at
protests.
In the aftermath of the horrific attacks on 7 October, many
people took to the streets to make their views heard. Many did so
peacefully and respectfully. I had the great privilege of
marching alongside many people, including some in this House,
against anti-Semitism on the streets of both Manchester and
London. Sadly, those protests do not tell the whole story.
Over the past few months, we have all seen disturbing and
distressing examples of hateful abuse, of serious damage, and of
law-abiding citizens being intimidated and prevented from going
about their daily life. The right to protest is fundamental to
our democracy, but when we see people hurling racist abuse,
desecrating national memorials of great significance to our
country, or taking flares to marches to cause disruption and
fear, the only reasonable response is outrage and disgust.
Tolerating these actions would be radicalising in itself. This
Government will not stand by and allow a small minority to incite
hatred and commit crimes, undermining our proud tradition of
peaceful protest.
Today, the Government have announced a package of measures to put
a stop to this criminality for good. Protesters have for too long
been able to claim in law that protest is a ‘reasonable excuse’
for criminal behaviour. Blocking roads, preventing ambulances
from getting through and stopping people from getting to work or
visiting loved ones are breathtakingly selfish acts. The British
public certainly do not see an acceptable justification for that
level of disruption to their life. That is why we are removing
that defence for relevant crimes. Protesters will no longer be
able to cite the right to protest as a reasonable excuse to get
away with disruptive offences, such as blocking roads.
Through the package that we are announcing today, we will crack
down on those who climb on war memorials. In recent months, we
have seen cases where individuals have broken away from large
protests and scaled national monuments. War memorials belong to
all of us. They are the altars of our national grief, and it is
clearly not acceptable to disrespect them in that way; it is an
assault on the memory of so many who gave their life for our
freedom and to defend our nation. Attacking our national
memorials goes beyond the legitimate exercise of free speech. We
must not give those who commit criminal acts at protests the
ability to get away with it by simply hiding their identity.
Once the legislation comes into force, the police will have new
powers to arrest protesters at certain protests who wear face
coverings to conceal their identity. Those who shout racist abuse
and extremist rhetoric will no longer be able to hide from
justice. We are also protecting the public by putting an end to
people bringing flares on marches. Flares have been used during
large-scale protests, and have been fired at police officers,
posing significant risk of injury. A new offence will ban the
possession of flares, fireworks and any other pyrotechnics at
protests. Anyone who flouts the new rules will face serious
consequences, including up to three months in jail and a £1,000
fine for those who climb on war memorials.
The changes that we have announced today build on the legislation
that we introduced last year to help the police tackle disruption
from protests. We criminalised interfering with key national
infrastructure through Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.
Since we passed the Act last year, the Metropolitan Police have
made more than 600 arrests to minimise the disruption caused by
Just Stop Oil. On Tuesday, the Home Secretary met policing
leaders to thank them for their work, and to encourage the use of
all existing powers at their disposal, as well as these new
measures, to maintain order at protests. I am very grateful to
front-line officers across the country for their efforts and
successes in keeping the British people safe during an immensely
challenging period. I know that policing these events on a
regular basis is both complex and demanding. It takes officers
away from crucial work preventing crime and protecting vulnerable
people in our communities.
As I have made clear, freedom of expression is vital to our
democracy, and this House champions it every day. People must be
able to speak without fear, and have their right to peaceful
protest protected, but those freedoms and rights are not
absolute, for very good reason. There is no freedom to commit
violence or intimidation, or to harass others. This country has
laws against vocally supporting terror organisations for a very
good reason, and last month, the Government proscribed Hizb
ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. That group actively
celebrated the 7 October terrorist attacks in Israel that led to
the rape and murder of many, many people. It is an organisation
that has poisoned minds for far too long.
We must, and we will, continue to stand with communities who feel
threatened, and ensure their safety wherever they live and work.
The Government are sticking to the plan to give police the powers
that they need to crack down on crime and keep our streets safe.
We will never tolerate hateful, dangerous or intimidating
behaviour. We will always put the decent, law-abiding majority
first. We will do what is right and fair. I commend this
Statement to the House”.
4.03pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this debate on last week’s
Government Statement on protest measures. It is important to
start my comments on such a Statement by thanking the police for
all the work they are doing to maintain public order across the
country. We know that many officers are having to give up rest
days to police protests, and those demands are growing. Can the
Minister start by outlining how resources are being allocated to
meet that demand and what the impact has been on neighbourhood
policing? Protest is a fundamental freedom in a democracy, and
that right must be protected. If that freedom is abused and used
to intimidate, harass or harm others, safeguards are clearly
needed.
This is yet another suite of measures to tackle issues arising at
protests. Can the Minister confirm that all these additional
measures have been requested by the police across the UK as well
as in London, and that they will be included in the Criminal
Justice Bill to allow proper scrutiny of the accompanying
guidelines?
On the issue of face coverings and the power to arrest those
seeking to conceal their identity, is this an automatic offence
decided by an individual officer, or is it triggered by a set of
circumstances then to be authorised by a senior officer? We all
understand that there is legitimate concern about the use of face
coverings to conceal identity, but what about Chinese dissidents
protesting outside the Chinese Embassy, or Iranian dissidents
demonstrating outside the Iranian Embassy? Will they still be
able to cover their faces, which they may well wish to do to
protect families at home from intimidation or worse? We have a
proud tradition of giving safe haven to dissidents opposing
oppressive regimes.
We support the measures relating to flares and fireworks, which
have been used to fuel public disorder and intimidate the police.
Can the Minister say how they will be enforced in protests, which
sometimes involve thousands? Our war memorials rightly hold a
special place in the collective affection and respect of our
nation. They remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to
protect the very freedoms which a very small number of people
seek to desecrate. This has sparked understandable outrage across
the country, including from me personally. My uncle, whom I am
named after, was killed on D-day. His name is proudly remembered
on a war memorial near his home village of Cheldon in Devon,
close to both the town of Chulmleigh and the former constituency
of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. To think of this and other war
memorials being under threat or defaced is unthinkable. Can the
Minister outline how the new measure in the forthcoming Bill is
expected to work in practice?
Also raised was the issue of the definition of “hateful
extremism”. The Government are looking at this, and work is
ongoing. Can the Minister update us on what progress has been
made, and when can we expect a Statement? The police of course
need the necessary laws to police protests and, importantly, the
confidence to use them. The Minister in the other place raised
the issue of the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Are other groups
under consideration for proscription, and have the Government
assessed their involvement in any of the protests that we have
seen? What action, if any, are the Government seeking to
take?
Above all, in our proud democracy there is the right to
peacefully protest. That is a fundamental freedom in our country
of which we all are proud. It must not be abused but it must not
be curbed unnecessarily either. The right balance must be struck
between safeguarding that right to protest and the important duty
to safeguard the public.
(LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government are trying to strike a
balance among competing priorities—maintaining the right to
peaceful protest, restraining incitement to racial and religious
hatred, and keeping the country moving, free from disruptive
events. It is right that police use all available powers to
arrest those who go beyond what is acceptable for a peaceful
protest, not least when their actions are motivated by hate.
Protest should not be used as a shield to allow anti-Semitism,
Islamophobia or any other type of hatred to fester with
impunity.
However, we must ensure that the tactics employed by a minority
do not undermine the ability of others to protest peacefully. I
have a number of concerns, and it would be helpful if the
Minister could address them when he responds. The provisions
announced to prevent the use of facial coverings plainly bear a
relationship to the increased use of facial recognition
technology in policing. The Policing Minister is on record as
saying that he is already encouraging police forces to search all
available databases, including the passport database, to identify
people using facial recognition technology for crime
generally.
Clause 27 of the Criminal Justice Bill creates a very wide power
to access driver licence records for this purpose, but there has
been little public debate on this or on the parameters of the
accelerated use of such technology. Given the potential freedoms
that this could infringe, is a legal protest the correct context
for technology to be used? Should the faces of people engaged in
lawful and peaceful protest systematically be recorded and added
to databases? Would there be a temptation to create lists of
people who attend such protests, with the justification that
these are people who are not in favour of the status quo and
might, at some future date, cause trouble?
Police already collect information on political activists.
However, attending a protest should not qualify as criminal
activism. The fact that facial recognition is being introduced
into policing without the debate or openness that is needed is a
cause for concern. Since the Government are proposing amendments
to the Criminal Justice Bill, will the Minister commit to setting
out in that Bill the circumstances in which this technology
should be used? Will he commit specifically to addressing the
many concerns that the systems can be particularly bad at
recognising black female faces? This is powerful technology, but
it is not infallible by any means.
As things stand, its use enjoys public support, but that support
may diminish if it is deployed disproportionately, causing
problems for minority groups or being used for minor offences. It
is surely in the interests of all of us who want to continue to
see policing by consent for this to be avoided.
Finally, I want to raise the question of police resources. The
Home Affairs Committee recently expressed concern about the
effect that the increasing number of protests is having on the
number of rest days being cancelled for police officers. Last
year the Metropolitan Police had to cancel 4,000 rest days to
police protests at a cost of nearly £19 million. Can the Minister
say what the Home Office is doing to ensure that police forces
are reimbursed for the cost of these cancelled days? When I was a
member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, we had a dreadful
job trying to get the money back from the Home Office. I suspect
that things have not changed very much. What is being done to
support officers’ well-being when large numbers of rest days have
to be cancelled?
Will police officers receive the necessary resources and training
to identify and prevent hate crimes, including threats and
incitements to violence on social media? According to the
official figures, between October and December last year there
were more than 1,000 protests and vigils and 600 arrests,
accounting for 26,000 police officer shifts. This issue is not
going away. The duty of care that we owe police officers needs to
be addressed as a matter of urgency.
These are among the issues that we on these Benches will want to
raise during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I look
forward to the Minister giving us his early indications of his
views.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Doocey, for their generally supportive remarks. Like the noble
Lord, , I join in congratulating,
thanking and praising the police for their strenuous efforts to
keep us all safe during the recent heightened protest
activity.
Both noble Lords asked me about the questions raised in response
to the original Statement, regarding the Home Affairs Select
Committee pointing out that 4,000 rest days had been lost, coming
at a cost of about £18 million or £19 million. Obviously, that is
very concerning, but I have to say that the police uplift
programme has helped many forces around the country significantly
with their numbers. That helps to minimise the number of rest
days lost. Unfortunately, the Metropolitan Police in London did
not manage to fulfil its police uplift numbers, and that has
financial consequences as well as a consequence for the rest of
the officers employed. It is regrettable, but I am afraid it is
very much for the Metropolitan Police to up its recruitment to
sort out that particular problem. That is not the same as saying
that we do not care about it or are not keeping a very close eye
on it. We do.
I should also point out that the police have arrested more than
600 people over the course of the protests, and some 30-plus were
related to Terrorism Act offences. Once again, I thank the police
for their efforts.
On the question about whether these laws were requested by the
police, the police have a comprehensive suite of powers to
maintain public order and to keep the public safe. However, we
keep their powers under constant review and, when gaps are
identified, by whomever, we seek to legislate for them. I am not
precisely sure how many of these powers were asked for by the
police; I know that the bulk of them were, but not precisely
which ones. When we come across gaps in the legislation, we seek
to make these types of changes.
Those were very good questions on face coverings, particularly as
regards the legitimate wearing of face coverings in protests. It
is not difficult to come up with a number of scenarios that would
classify themselves as legitimate. This was addressed in detail
by my right honourable friend the Security Minister. The
guidelines in the legislation that we are setting out will cover
this, because police officers will have discretion to give an
order requiring a face covering to be removed, but those
commanding the policing of protests will have discretion over
when they ask for that instruction to be carried out.
Under Section 60AA, the new criminal offence of concealing an
identity will apply only when there is a particular authorisation
on a protest, and those authorisations come only when there is a
risk of serious violence or crime. Just as a reminder to the
House, Section 60 offences can be ordered only by those of the
rank of inspector or above and for a period of 24 hours, which is
extendable for a further 24 hours. So they apply only to protests
and only where an authorisation is in place. I hope that answers
and assuages noble Lords’ concerns to some extent. I will come
back to facial recognition towards the end of my remarks.
The noble Lord, , asked me about pyrotechnics,
flares and disorder. The current legislation on the use of
fireworks in public places does not consistently prohibit the
possession of pyrotechnic articles during a protest but limits it
to specific circumstances, such as the use of fireworks in public
places and possession of explosives other than for a lawful
purpose. It is not already an offence to be in the possession of
such articles at certain musical events and football matches, for
example, but this extends it to processions and protests. The new
measures do not provide police with new stop and search powers,
but they do allow the police to make an arrest when an individual
is holding or lighting a flare at a protest.
I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, , on war memorials. I am also
delighted that this is taking place, for all sorts of reasons. I
do not have a huge amount more to say on this subject; I think we
have all been offended by the antics of certain protesters who
have clambered all over war memorials. The Security Minister in
the other place described them as
“altars of our national grief”.—[Official Report, Commons,
8/2/23; col. 379.]
That description could be extended, but it is very appropriate
none the less and sums up all our feelings.
The noble Lord, , also asked me about hateful
extremism. He is quite right that there is some thinking about
that at the moment. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities is working on a definition of extremism
alongside the Attorney-General. Of course, this is an extremely
complex subject and conversation, so I will update the House when
I have more, but I am afraid I cannot at the moment.
The noble Lord will know what I am about to say on proscription.
The Government do not comment on groups that are potentially
about to be proscribed or are under consideration. This will come
under the Criminal Justice Bill.
I do not think facial recognition is entirely aligned with the
subject of the measures that are being taken today. However, I
understand the noble Baroness’s concerns and this subject will
have to be further debated. It is a philosophical discussion
about freedoms, rights and proportionality, and I have no doubt
that we will revisit it in due course.
These measures are proportionate and carefully thought through.
We will be discussing them at greater length, and I thank noble
Lords for their support.4.18pm
(Con)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will be cautious about invoking
criminal law unless there are clear mischiefs to be addressed. I
entirely agree with the noble Lord, , about face coverings and was
much reassured by what my noble friend said, but I am much less
happy about war memorials. Clearly, clambering over a war
memorial is an unattractive and distasteful business, but I am
far from clear that it is such a mischief that we should invoke
the criminal law and impose criminal penalties. Many years ago,
when my wife was 20, we were clambering over the lions in
Trafalgar Square. I do not want to be told that we were defiling
the memory of Lord Nelson.
(Con)
I take my noble friend’s point, though I must admit that I did
not realise that he had quite such a colourful past. I am afraid
that, on this, the Government disagree, and think that this is a
proportionate measure.
(Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time in the last 24 hours, it is a
pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, . Why was this announcement
made by vague press release on a Wednesday evening, rather than
in the House of Commons? While I am grateful to the Minister, as
always, for that lengthy answer, I do not quite understand the
gaps in the present law. We have all these stop and search
powers, for example, including specific and blanket powers in
relation to protest. Why do we need additional face covering
removal powers—are they not a form of stop and search? I totally
agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the huge relevance
of facial recognition technology to why people are concerned
about uncovering their faces. At the moment, it is for the
police, totally unregulated by statute, to decide who goes on the
watchlist, what kind of technology is used, and the trigger for
stop and search on the basis of being on this watchlist. The
noble Baroness is quite right: if we are going down this path in
relation to face coverings, we should be regulating the use of
facial recognition technology as well.
(Con)
I do not entirely disagree with the noble Baroness, but I do not
think this is the particular forum for that discussion. It is
clearly a philosophical discussion, as much as a legal and
operational one, that is required around the appropriate extent
of facial recognition technology. I am sure that is a debate we
will return to. These particular powers are very specific and can
happen only under certain circumstances, so in this context they
are proportionate.
The
My Lords, like others, I entirely share the views about war
memorials and their desecration, and fireworks and flares—there
is a lot that is sensible in this. On face coverings, what
concerns me is the law which we often do not often think
about—the law of unintended consequences. To those dissidents, I
would add religious minorities to the list of those who may be
concerned about this. I wonder whether the effect of this will be
that more people will wear face coverings, not fewer, because
they are concerned about facial recognition. I find it hard to
understand why this should be a matter for the law. If somebody
commits a criminal offence while on a march, we already have the
powers to deal with them. If somebody on a peaceful protest
chooses to wear a face covering, I find it hard to understand why
that, in and of itself, is a problem. The Minister has explained
that this will be used only under certain circumstances, but if I
have heard him correctly it is around the “risk” of criminal
activity and violence. We do not arrest people because we think
that they might be doing something. If the protest is peaceful,
why should somebody not wear a face mask? I am struggling to
understand why this has become such an issue, and I am concerned
about minority groups who could be adversely affected by
this.
(Con)
The current legislation gives police the power to direct people
to remove face coverings in designated areas and to seize face
coverings, but there is a loophole, in that an individual could
follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering
but then move to a new area and redeploy the face covering. We
are trying to close that loophole. I take the most reverend
Primate’s point about minorities and so on, but, as I have tried
to explain, this is being applied to protests only where there is
an authorisation in place, so it is time-limited and very
specific.
(CB)
My Lords, I welcome this package, a number of measures in which I
recommended in my role as the Government’s independent adviser on
political violence and disruption. Can the Minister say more
about how the Government intend to mitigate the Ziegler judgment,
which is a very welcome commitment on the part of the Government
to make it clear that protest is not sufficient justification for
criminal acts such as vandalism and disruption of highways?
(Con)
The noble Lord asks a very good question, because this is about,
effectively, reasonable excuse. The Ziegler judgment held that
obstructive protests that intentionally cause disruption can be
protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. That means that
those who purposefully disrupt the daily lives of others can
escape justice under the guise of protest. Our amendments will
mitigate the impact of this judgment and ensure that those who
deliberately disrupt others by obstructing the highway cannot
rely on protest before the court as a reasonable excuse using the
definitions defined under the PCSC Act.
(Con)
My Lords, most of us have witnessed and been involved in
protests, and even though some have been quite violent and very
disturbing, what we have seen over the past four months with the
pro-Palestinian marches and protests in London has been on a
completely different level. The police have had their hands tied
behind their backs, not least because they have been unable to
identify so many of those involved who have been wearing face
coverings, and with huge crowds the police have been unable to
see exactly who they are. Notwithstanding that the police have
made some arrests and have charged and prosecuted certain
individuals, the numbers involved are limited and small. Month on
month, people have been allowed to protest, calling for the death
and destruction of Jews and Israel, and to show Nazi symbols,
with Islamic extremists who have been involved with Hizb
ut-Tahrir. Permitting them to carry on like this is not
acceptable. I fully support this proceeding to make sure those
individuals are dealt with properly.
(Con)
My noble friend raises some very good points. She is right that
the simple fact of the matter is that recent protests have upped
the temperature of protest. However, we have to remain
proportionate, and I think this strikes the right balance.
(GP)
My Lords, I want to put it on record that I am appalled at the
behaviour of the noble Viscount, , in climbing on the lions in
Trafalgar Square. I think that is unacceptable. I have been on a
lot of protests and I have never climbed on a war memorial or a
lion. However, I agree with him in asking why on earth we are
making this a criminal offence. All the officers I have spoken
to—admittedly a small sample—have said that they do not need
these powers and that they have enough powers. What these extra
powers do is take away the discretion that they have in dealing
with people, which is something they value because they do not
want to be tied up in having to go off to the police station with
loads of arrested people. Most of these measures are totally
unnecessary. I completely support the firework ban; they are so
environmentally polluting. But the Government cannot ban
everything that they do not like; that is a mistake that some
Governments get into, and that way lies a loss of democracy. In
response to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Minister
said that facial recognition is for another day and it is not
quite covered now. I argue that oversight of this is urgent, so
in good time is not enough. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said
months back that this is a horse that has bolted out of its
stable. We really have to find some way of making sure that the
information is not passed out by the police, which it is in some
cases now. Will the Minister think about bringing this in or
discussing it urgently?
(Con)
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, those discussions are
ongoing and will continue within the Home Office. I certainly
raise the subject regularly, not least because I too am concerned
about proportionality; I think it entirely right. I am of course
aware that the Government cannot ban everything they do not like,
much as it might sometimes be fun to do so. On war graves,
cemeteries, war memorials and so on, the public outrage was
fairly significant, and noted. It was clear that this offended a
great many people from all parts of the community. I do not know
which officers the noble Baroness spoke to, but they should have
spoken to their boss, because he asked for these powers.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and
Human Rights Commission. As the Minister would expect, I looked
at this quite carefully in the context of Article 11 of the ECHR.
He is right, and I accept fully, that Article 11.2 gives the
state the right to bring in public order laws and a whole of host
of other things. I would say to colleagues who are feeling
uncomfortable about this that they need to look at the wording of
Article 11.2. However, my question to the Minister is slightly
different. It relates to the Aarhus Convention, which the United
Kingdom signed in 2002, and which is there to defend the rights
of environmental protesters. The Special Rapporteur on the Aarhus
convention recently visited the United Kingdom. He has since sent
a letter of complaint to the United Kingdom Government concerning
environmental protesters. Is the Minister minded to reply to that
letter and to publish the reply?
(Con)
I am afraid that this is the first I have heard of this, so I
cannot comment further, but I will of course look into it. These
changes are compatible with the ECHR and do not prevent
individuals exercising their rights to freedom of expression and
assembly. Many of the offences affected, including public
nuisance, which involve serious harm to or obstruction of the
public’s rights, are highly likely to fall outside of the
protections of ECHR rights or within the state’s margin of
appreciation. On the rights of environmental protesters, I do not
think we should elevate any particular set of protesters’ rights
above any other.
(Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister congratulate my noble friend
on his ability to climb one
of those large animals in Trafalgar Square? At the same time,
does he accept that what my noble friend said is a salutary
reminder? We are becoming too concerned about restriction and not
concerned enough about freedom. I am very concerned that the
normal habits of proper protest—particularly at a time when
parliamentary democracy is under very considerable pressure—are
being undermined by the constant provision of yet more new things
that the police want in order to control. I would like to see a
real understanding of the importance of protest. I very much
agreed with the most reverend Primate when he said that he could
not quite see why people who were not doing anything illegal
should be told to remove their face coverings. For the Iranians
and the Chinese, face coverings are essential if there is to be
protest.
(Con)
I am very happy to join in the congratulations to my noble friend
on his lion-climbing
expertise, but I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend
when it comes to climbing war memorials as a normal part of
protest. What is normal about climbing a war memorial?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, if ever there was an example of the slow attrition of
our democratic freedoms, it is this. First, experience tells us
that, once a law is on the statute books, it will in future,
merely as a convenience, be abused to exert control. Secondly,
why on earth would wearing a face covering be made a criminal
offence, if not to prepare to punish someone who has committed no
crime whatsoever as yet?
(Con)
My Lords, I have already largely answered that question on face
masks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say it again: we
are creating a new criminal offence of wearing a face covering
for the purpose of concealing identity when the police place a
particular authorisation on a protest. The particular
authorisation point is surely the key.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that live facial recognition is
irrelevant to this. I see a very clear intersection with these
issues. I agree with him that there are philosophical aspects—I
would say ethical aspects—but there are practical ones as well.
The public looks at it in both those contexts. I was until
recently chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs
Committee, and the Minister may have seen a letter that we wrote
to the Home Secretary very recently on the subject of live facial
recognition. I base my questions on that. First, on the issue of
how live facial recognition is applied, one police force said to
us—we have not been able to obtain any backing from that force
for this comment—that the watchlist is made up of people known to
have committed offences, or wanted for offences, who may have an
intent to commit an offence. So how will a watchlist be made up
for the use of live facial recognition of a protest? In
particular, will images obtained during a protest or previous
protests be used to make up a watchlist for a subsequent
protest?
(Con)
First, I did not say that it was irrelevant. I said that this is
a very specific set of circumstances and I accept that there is a
whole separate debate about facial recognition that we need to
have in the near future—I accept that it is a matter of urgency.
I cannot honestly recall seeing the noble Baroness’s letter to
the Home Secretary. I will track it down and, if I may, I will
come back in writing on that question because I genuinely do not
know the answer.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the reasons why there is this problem is that
the police appear over a period of time to have been confused
about what is a criminal act or not, sending messages on social
media defining jihad in the most peculiar way, as some kind of
inner struggle, or more recently saying, “We have looked at that
flag, checked it out, and it is not a threat”, even though it is
being used by ISIS. This makes the public more inclined to think
that the criminal law might be needed, rather than the
enforcement of existing laws.
Does the Minister concede that we have a deeper problem than
climbing on statues? We earlier discussed the horrors that
children in Gaza are enduring—weaponised by demonstrators walking
around with dolls covered in blood, shouting “Blood on your
hands” at our fellow Jewish citizens. We talked about
disinformation earlier and we now know that conspiracy theories
are mainstreamed to political parties—no facemasks required.
Would the Minister concede that maybe we should enforce the laws
we have, but avoid criminalising other behaviour? There is the
bigger problem of a growth of anti-Semitism in society, which
really needs to be challenged as much as any other racism that is
a scourge.
(Con)
I agree entirely with the remarks of the noble Baroness about
anti-Semitism which I find personally disgusting, as do the
Government, as she will know. On police confusion, it would be
unwise for me to comment on the matters the noble Baroness
describes, not least—as we frequently say from the Dispatch
Box—because of the operational independence of the police, which
I am very happy to defend. As for glorification, which she
effectively talks about, the UK has a strong counterterrorism
framework —one of the strongest in the world. It is important to
recognise that. It is an offence to encourage an act of
terrorism, and that includes glorifying—including by praising or
celebrating—action in committing or preparing acts of terrorism
where others may be encouraged to emulate that action, and that
offence can be committed recklessly. As I said earlier in
answering the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, some 30 people have
been arrested since the start of these protests for offences
under the Terrorism Act. The police are not confused when it
comes to policing those sorts of marches; the statistics prove
otherwise. These measures are proportionate to the sorts of
activities we are describing.
|
