PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Coronation: Policing of Protests - 9 May 2023 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The coronation was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of national pride and a moment when the eyes of the world were upon us. It was a ceremony with roots over a millennium old, marking a renewed dedication to service by His Majesty the King in this new reign. The coronation went smoothly and without disruption. I thank the 11,500 police officers who were on duty alongside 6,500 military personnel and many civilians.

Today, Commissioner Mark Rowley has outlined the intelligence picture in the hours leading up to the coronation. It included more than one plot to cause severe disruption by placing activated rape alarms in the path of horses to induce a stampede and a separate plot to douse participants in the procession with paint. That was the context: a once in a generation national moment facing specific intelligence threats about multiple, well-organised plots to disrupt it. The focus of the police was, rightly, on ensuring that the momentous occasion passed safely and without major disruption. That was successful. All plots to disrupt the coronation were foiled by a combination of intelligence work and proactive vigilant policing on the ground. I would like to thank the police and congratulate them on that success.

At the same time, extensive—[Interruption.] Wait for it. At the same time, extensive planning ensured that protests could take place. That was also successful. Hundreds of protesters exercised their right to peaceful protest, including a large group numbering in the hundreds in and around Trafalgar Square. Where the police reasonably believed they had grounds for arrest, they acted. The latest information is that 64 arrests were made. I will not comment on individual cases or specific decisions, but the arrests included a person wanted for sexual offences, people equipped to commit criminal damage with large quantities of paint, and arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, often backed by intelligence. The Met’s update last night included regret—to use its word—that six people arrested could not join the hundreds protesting in Trafalgar Square and nearby. The Met confirmed that those six people have now had their bail cancelled with no further action.

The police are operationally independent and it is primarily for the Mayor of London to hold the Met to account, but let us be clear: at the weekend officers had to make difficult judgments in fast time, in a highly pressured situation against a threatening intelligence picture. I thank the police for doing that, for delivering a successful a coronation and for enabling safe, peaceful protests.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. and learned Member and take her questions seriously. She asked about pressure; the police are operationally independent and make decisions independent of Government. Ministers received a briefing, particularly as the intelligence picture escalated in the 24 hours before the event. The Mayor of London also received briefings, as did the shadow Home Secretary on Friday, I believe. There is nothing out of the ordinary in Ministers receiving briefings, not least because the police and other security and civilian agencies need to co-ordinate. The House has just debated and scrutinised the legislation at some length, and there are no plans to change it.

On the six people arrested and the question of protests more generally, I repeat the point I made in my initial answer: hundreds of people exercised their right to protest peacefully. As the hon. and learned Lady said, that was done following engagement with the Republic protest group. The fact that hundreds of people were able to protest peacefully is testament to the right of peaceful protest.

I do not want to get into the details of the six people because, frankly, neither the hon. and learned Lady nor I has all the facts. But clearly, when the arrests were made, the police reasonably believed that there were grounds to do so. I emphasise again that several hundred people were able to peacefully protest on that day, as is their absolute right.

I caution my right hon. Friend against asserting that those people were wrongfully arrested. That is a legal threshold and it has not been established that it was met. On the issue of testing the legislation, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that this was a once-in-a-lifetime event, which took place against an intelligence backdrop that suggested that there were multiple, well-organised plots to cause serious disruption. Had they proceeded, they would have been taken very seriously by this House and been seen around the world. I do not think one can infer from what happened at the weekend that the recently passed legislation is defective.

I agree with the shadow Minister that it is important to maintain the balance to which she refers, but as I said in my opening and subsequent responses to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the right to protest was, for those hundreds of people, protected. The protests did happen, and indeed there is no question, in principle or in any legislation, but that the right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct. In recent months, however, we have seen that right being stretched into acts that were deliberately disruptive, when people have sought to close down the M25 and to close down the streets of London, not so much as an act of protest as to deliberately inconvenience the public. That is where we draw the line.

At the weekend, broadly the same test was applied. Peaceful protest is, of course, absolutely fine, but activity that was designed to seriously disrupt the coronation—including potentially causing a stampede of horses or covering the ceremonial procession in paint—was not acceptable. I think we can agree that this was a unique situation. The police had to make very difficult judgments and decisions in a very short time, against an extremely threatening intelligence picture, and the facts were often unclear at the time. I think all of us here should accept that those are difficult decisions. While it is for the police to answer operationally, I think that if they were here, they would say that they acted lawfully at the time to the best of their reasonable belief. However, I do want to put on record that the right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct, and I am sure that no one on either side of the House would ever seek to undermine it.

It is easy to criticise after the event, but yes, I do agree that the police did a good job in extremely trying, difficult and fast-moving circumstances, and in which judgments were inevitably difficult.

It is entirely inaccurate to say that the right to protest does not exist. As I pointed out, hundreds and hundreds of people did peacefully and lawfully protest on coronation day. They did so unmolested and unimpeded, which goes to show that the idea that the right to protest does not exist anymore is absolute nonsense. What does not exist is the right to cause disruption to other members of society. That is what our laws seek to prevent.

In relation to the Human Rights Act 1998, and particularly articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights, the Public Order Act 2023 has a section 19(1)(a) statement on the face of it, saying that legal analysis finds the Act is compatible. If the hon. Lady studies articles 10 and 11, particularly the second paragraphs, she will see that qualified rights are able to be balanced against the right of democratically elected legislatures to legislate to prevent criminal activity, including disruption.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I do not believe that any such letters were sent in my name, so I cannot comment on who may have received them. I suspect, although I am not certain, that those letters related to clarifying the new statutory provisions that were recently brought into effect through the Public Order Act 2023. The operational independence of the police is important, because Parliament legislates and it is then for the police to apply those laws without fear or favour, and they did so on this occasion.

Again, exactly what happened is an operational matter for the police. Clearly, last Saturday the police had a lot going on in central London, policing the largest public event we have ever had in our country’s history. I do not know—in fact, no Member of this House knows or can know—precisely what inquiries were being undertaken while the decision ultimately to release those individuals was taken. Complaint processes are available if any individual member of the public wants to follow them. They are available to anyone who is arrested or encounters the police. If someone feels that the police have behaved unreasonably in a particular situation, they are able to use those complaint procedures.

No, that is not the purpose of the Public Order Act, which is designed to prevent people from deliberately disrupting the daily lives of their fellow citizens, as we have seen with the locking-on on public highways, which causes enormous traffic jams that stop people getting to hospital, getting their children to school and getting to work—we have seen 10-mile tailbacks on the M25. We had specific intelligence that people planned to disrupt the coronation by creating a stampede of horses and by covering the ceremonial procession in paint. The Public Order Act is designed to stop such disruption while, of course, allowing peaceful protest. That is its purpose.

My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I join him in opposing Sadiq Khan’s appalling ULEZ idea.

The police and armed forces did a great job of policing the coronation. Between the Metropolitan police and Thames Valley police, who policed the Windsor concert the following day, almost 30,000 officers were deployed at one time or another during the relevant period. I think 11,500 officers were deployed on the day of the coronation itself, in addition to 6,500 armed forces personnel. There were 312 protected people who came to this country from around the world, and we deployed almost 1,000 close protection officers. All those officers did a fantastic job in a moment of national pride for all of us.

Many pieces of legislation require on-the-ground interpretation, whether by the police or subsequently by the courts in case law. Indeed, the new Act contains much more precise definitions of what constitutes serious disruption, which was previously extremely ambiguous. The police and others had called for that clarity. Obviously, the House is welcome to conduct scrutiny whenever it wants. It is standard for new legislation to be subject to post-legislative scrutiny some time later, but in many areas this new Act, which recently received Royal Assent, provides additional specificity, clarity and precision that were previously lacking.

I recommend that Members on both sides of the House read the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s article in today’s Evening Standard robustly setting out the background and defending the police’s approach to the coronation. My hon. Friend refers to the expression of regret that those six people were unable to join the hundreds of others who protested peacefully. Those hundreds of others were exercising their right to peaceful protest, as they are perfectly entitled to do. It is worth mentioning in passing, as he did, that they were in a tiny, tiny minority, but that does not undermine their right to protest if they so choose.

That is absolute nonsense. This legislation is preventing disruption to the lives of our fellow citizens. I wholly repudiate the suggestion that it was rushed through; there was extensive ping-pong, which I do not recall the hon. Gentleman turning up to, although he is so concerned about scrutiny. As for his comment about the process for a Bill gaining Royal Assent, I will not dignify that with a response.

Just Stop Oil has adapted its tactics since it blocked the M25 in November, causing 10-mile tailbacks, after which a number of arrests were made, with some of the people involved then being remanded in custody. It has changed to these slow walking tactics, but the police are applying cumulative disruption tests to those, using section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 and making notices under that Act. Following recent disruptions in the past 10 to 14 days, the roads have typically been cleared within 10 minutes, which I am sure Londoners, my constituents and others, will welcome strongly.

I do not accept that analysis. The powers are designed to prevent disruption where it might occur or where it is occurring. That includes things such as locking on, which we have seen cause huge disruption on the streets of London. The law allows peaceful protest where it is not disruptive and where people do not plan to cause disruption, which is why hundreds and hundreds of people, albeit a tiny minority of the total there, were able to protest peacefully. Where someone is preparing to commit or is committing a criminal offence, such as disrupting a procession, it is reasonable for the police to act.

The new legislation contains a specific clause, added during its passage, protecting journalistic freedoms. An incident took place in Hertfordshire a few months ago, in November, I believe, where a journalist was incorrectly arrested and the relevant police force, Hertfordshire, apologised subsequently. The Government then legislated in the recent Bill, with a specific clause protecting journalistic freedom. I do not want to comment on an individual operational matter, not least because neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I have the full facts. As I said, if an individual or others feel that they were not fairly or properly treated, there is a complaints process they can go through. Parliament, however, has made its view clear.

No, I do not agree, and I have already explained why.

I have mentioned the ECHR compatibility, particularly in relation to articles 10 and 11. Before the police can arrest anyone, they have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence has been committed. Obviously, individual operational decisions—in this case relating to six people—are something that can be looked into subsequently if that is necessary, but the Public Order Bill, as passed by Parliament, does nothing to criminalise lawful protest. As I have said, hundreds and hundreds of people did exercise exactly that right, although they were in a tiny minority.

I have not heard that particular account before. It is not really appropriate for me to comment on something that I have just heard about on the Floor of the Chamber. However, I have already drawn the attention of the House to the procedures that are available to members of the public. I do appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s opening comment that the police had a very difficult job. They were under enormous pressure; they were dealing with a number of intelligence threats that I outlined at the beginning of my response. Things were moving very quickly. Often the picture was confusing, and often things had to be done in a rush, so I do appreciate his acknowledgment of the very difficult job that the police had to do, but I think they rose to the occasion

The overall gold commander at the event is one of the Metropolitan police’s most experienced public order commanders—at the rank of commander. Many officers have had specialist public order training in the course of their career, but training must keep up with legislative changes. The College of Policing and others will be issuing the relevant guidance to ensure that that is addressed.

No, I do not agree.

With great respect, that is nonsense. Comparing the policing of the coronation with Putin’s Russia, where opposition figures are incarcerated and people such as Alexei Navalny are in prison and suffering the most appalling and inhumane treatment, is an insult to the appalling treatment they are suffering and not at all respectful to those being oppressed in Russia. Hundreds of people peacefully protested against the monarchy—they were a tiny minority, but they did protest—and the police only made arrests, 64 in total, where they had reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence had been committed or was in preparation. If anyone feels the arrest they experienced was not proper or appropriate, there are mechanisms they can use to complain and to seek redress.

I agree that communication between local authorities and the police is important and that that join-up needs to happen. The question the hon. Lady asks is probably best directed via the police and crime commissioner for the Mayor of London, who I am sure will be happy to take up the query.

I do not accept that. I have already pointed out the operational independence of the police and I have said that briefings by the Met on the coronation were received not just by Home Office Ministers, but also by the shadow Home Secretary and the Mayor of London, all of which was completely proper.

No. What we saw on Saturday was the police doing their best, in very difficult and challenging circumstances, to prevent disruption while allowing and facilitating peaceful protest, which indeed went ahead.

Training is very important, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned a little while ago, but, once again, I do not think we saw any trampling on the right to protest. We saw hundreds of people exercising their right to protest. I urge the House to keep in mind that this was a unique, once-in-a-generation event. The eyes of the world were upon us and there were numerous intelligence reports, which I was briefed on and perhaps the shadow Home Secretary was briefed on too, indicating well-developed plots to disrupt the coronation. The policing response needs to be considered in that context.

As I said earlier, those letters were not, as far as I can recall, sent in my name. They may well have been attempting to be helpful by clarifying recently enacted legislation that some groups may not have been familiar with; it is not unreasonable to try to ensure that relevant parties know when the law changes. On journalistic freedom, as the hon. Lady says, this House—supported by the Government—voted particularly and specifically to protect journalists, and that is the right thing to do. If anyone feels that that has not been properly implemented, complaints procedures are available.

As I have said two or three times already, the new Public Order Act contains a section—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) suggested a moment ago that it was section 17—specifically to protect journalistic freedom. Of course, that came after the incident in Hertfordshire. If there are particular individual cases where the new law, and indeed the wider ECHR and common law right for journalists, is not being applied, there are complaints mechanisms. But this House, supported by the Government, has legislated specifically to protect journalistic freedoms.

Without wanting to go into too many specifics, I believe that the police assessment at the time did not relate in this particular case to rape alarms or paint but to locking-on equipment. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is clear, but of course, many things are clear with hindsight; they are sometimes less clear in the heat of a live operation. In terms of assurance on the right to protest, the Public Order Act does not in any way infringe or undermine the right to protest. Indeed, we saw on Saturday quite a reasonably sized group—a few hundred people—protesting at the coronation event without any impediment, and these days we see Just Stop Oil protesters protesting almost daily, so there is evidence in front of us showing us how the right to protest unfolds on a near daily basis.

No, the legislation does not in any way criminalise or prevent protest. We see protests happening on a daily basis, including on Saturday. The legislation enables the police to prevent disruption. They need to have a reasonable belief in order to do that. If anyone feels that in this very small minority of cases—a tiny minority of cases—those powers were misapplied, there are complaints procedures, but the vast, vast, vast majority of people wishing to protest on Saturday did so.

I am not sure that that question merits an answer. The legislation is clearly politics agnostic, and it is for the police to apply it without fear or favour.

No. As I have said repeatedly, the Public Order Act and associated legislation are designed to prevent disruption to our fellow citizens’ day-to-day lives while enabling peaceful protest.

The fact that hundreds of people protested against the monarchy, albeit they were a tiny minority of the crowds, demonstrates that the right to protest is unfettered, as does the fact that, as I speak, and as we have this discussion here in Parliament, I suspect there are Just Stop Oil protesters somewhere in London no doubt up to their protesting activities. The right to protest is sacrosanct, and it is protected, not least by the European convention on human rights, but also by our domestic legislation, which is something we should all be pleased about.

I think that there is an update on all the arrests on the Metropolitan police website, which provides some of the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. Some arrests were made close to the ceremonial footprint, including people who had large quantities of paint. Other arrests were made at locations away from the ceremonial footprint at what might be described as a safehouse. The briefings that I received from the Met the night before—I believe the Mayor of London received them and possibly the Home Secretary; I am not sure—indicated multiple, well-developed and credible plots materially to disrupt the coronation, and it is greatly to the credit of the Metropolitan police that they prevented those from unfolding.

Yes, I would like to join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police, the armed forces personnel and the civilians involved in laying on the coronation for a successful and, ultimately, peaceful event, despite the plots that were uncovered in advance. I also thank the police for ensuring that those protests were able to take place. It is an event that, overall, this country can be proud of. I am sure all of us want to wish King Charles III well at the beginning of his reign and say, “God save the King.”