I have said it before and I will, no doubt, have the opportunity to say it again:
Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that I wholeheartedly support. The right of an individual to express their opinion and protest is, in my view, a cornerstone of our democratic society.
However, we have all seen some protest activity, carried out by a small minority of individuals utilising worrying guerrilla tactics, causing real misery to the hard-working public, disrupting businesses, interfering with emergency services, costing millions in taxpayers’ money, and sadly risking lives. For this reason, I am glad the previous Government introduced updated legislation to equip the police to better manage and tackle such highly disruptive tactics, such as through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Moreover, I welcome in the Public Order Act 2023:
– introduced the criminal offences of locking-on and going equipped to lock-on;
– created a new offence for interfering with key national infrastructure;
– extended police stop and search powers in relation to protest-related activity; and
– introduced Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, breach of which constitutes a criminal offence.
These activities are not what the general public understands to be ‘peaceful protests’. They are often well-organised, well-funded and ideologically driven.
In one case, Just Stop Oil activists aimed to cause complete airport gridlock at the height of the summer season in 2024, targeting the public and their families. The operations director at Manchester Airport said: 'hat these individuals were planning would not only have caused significant disruption for tens of thousands of passengers, but also a significant safety risk. The potential consequences of that do not bear thinking about.'
I would also point you to my statement on Palestine Action, in which I quote the then Home Secretary saying Palestine Action’s activity has increased since 2024 and its methods have become “more aggressive”, with its members showing “willingness to use violence”.
Mims Davies MP Statement on Proscribing the Palestine Action group | Mims Davies
Again, locking on is undoubtedly an extremely dangerous and disruptive tactic. I am glad that the Public Order Act criminalises the protest tactic of individuals attaching themselves to others, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption.
I do believe it is essential Ministers continue to implement measures that put a stop to the relentless reoffending and significant, often militant disruption caused by the minority of zealous protestors who believe they are entitled to infringe upon the rights of the British public to go about their daily lives in peace. No matter what one believes about an issue, there is no excuse whatsoever for violence, intimidation, or criminal damage. I believe we can and must get the balance right so people can have their say while others can get on with their lives safely and without extreme disruption.
This leads me onto concerns about legislative changes on cumulative disruption in the Crime and Policing Bill. I repeat, while I fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the Middle East, I am afraid in recent years we have seen repeated large scale protests which have left many people and communities feeling unsafe, intimidated and even scared to leave their homes week after week. This is clearly unacceptable and it is right that the impact of the cumulative disruption caused by protests is considered by the authorities.
However, it is important that we get the measure right, which is why Conservative Lords have put forward an amendment to replace the reference to a geographical area in the definition of relevant cumulative disruption with that of a subject area. This is to ensure that the police consider the context of the content of the protest or assembly when deciding whether to impose conditions on it, as opposed to solely considering the location.
Ultimately, I believe it is appropriate to give authorities greater discretion and foresight in managing public order, ensuring that overlapping events are appropriately regulated to minimise community impact.
Turning to the Labour Government's current proposals to define life sciences as key national infrastructure for the purposes of the Public Order Act. As Matt Vickers MP, Shadow Minister for Illegal Immigration, Crime, Policing and Fire, pointed out in the Committee debate held on the 17th of December 2025,
‘When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?’
Sarah Jones MP, the current Minister for Policing and Crime, responded,
‘Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.’
You can read the full transcript of that debate here:
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or - Hansard - UK Parliament
I do appreciate how strongly many of my constituents feel about the wellbeing of animals and I do also share this great concern. I am very aware the testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic and one on which many people hold extremely strong views which I respect. Because of our national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, this is rightly an area that is heavily regulated. It is also critical we continue to support research into the 3Rs: replacing the use of animals in research where unnecessary, reducing the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved in research.
You can read my latest update on this topic here:
Animal Free Science January 26
I think we can all fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest; however, again, when it crosses into purely illegal and deeply dangerous, destructive and violent activities, this is neither acceptable nor justifiable. Not for any one cause, not for any one group. We do not want to go down that path.
Unfortunately, the Labour Government is arguing that the current powers available to it are insufficient to tackle the evolving nature of protest tactics that are being deployed to threaten the viability of the UK life sciences sector, meaning that it has had to bring forward these regulations. Considering that the addition of a new sector to the Act is a significant change and was not a sector originally included by the last Government, I do think it was right for the Opposition to ask the current Labour Government to set out in further detail its reasons why it is necessary.
I believe this is an appropriate response to this issue, as ultimately, given its majority to make this change in Parliament, the Government must demonstrate it is working to ensure it balances the right to protest about issues people care deeply about alongside the need to uphold public order. We will continue to hold them to account on getting this balance right. We must protect all our communities and protect peaceful, lawful protest and I will always be very keen to get this equilibrium right.
