Public Order

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Alison Thewliss

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

Because the regulations are extremely unclear and extremely discretionary. [Interruption.] It is not clear at all in the regulations what is “minor” and what is “more than minor”, and neither of those things seem to me to be serious disruption. “More than minor” is not the same as serious disruption.

The regulations also refer to a “community”, which

“in relation to a public procession in England and Wales, means any group of persons that may be affected by the procession, whether or not all or any of those persons live or work in the vicinity of the procession.”

What does “affected” mean? Does that mean people saw it on the TV and they were upset by it? How are they “affected”? Again, that is unclear in the regulations, which will give police officers a huge amount of discretion to carry out the enforcement of this pretty lousy legislation.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) says that we have a common law system whereby common law offences are defined by precedent over many years—sometimes centuries. We are dealing here with a statutory instrument, and statutory instruments are different. That is why in the normal course of things, well-drafted legislation coming before this House has an interpretation section that defines such terms. Can the hon. Lady think of any good reason why we would not have a definitions section in this SI?

[Alison Thewliss]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is correct, and it seems clear to me that not having a definitions section suits the Government perfectly. It will make it incredibly difficult for any police officer to do their job in these circumstances, which is why the police are perhaps a bit nervous about it.

Liberty points out that the police could consider, for example, that a static assembly outside of a train station by a trade union could result in a more than minor delay to access to public transportation. The police could subsequently impose a condition that the trade union cannot protest outside the train station, even though they are trying to protest against that particular employer. People therefore might be sent a way off somewhere else and have to say, “Instead of standing at Central station, we will go and protest at Glasgow Green.” That is just not logical and would make no sense in Glasgow, just as it makes no sense in this legislation here in Westminster. It is why the House should have nothing to do with this legislation.

I do not want to detain the House unduly, because I know that other Members want to speak, but this legislation is flawed and wrong. The Home Secretary mentioned people taking things into their own hands, but people are doing that because they are egged on by a lot of the rhetoric coming from those on the Government Benches and from the press. I have seen people being hauled out of the way and hit in some of the footage that has been shown, and that is disturbing. This Government suggest that people can protest only in a way that suits them, not in the way that people want to make their voice heard in this democracy.

The only slow walking we should be concerned about in this place is the slow walk on which the Government are taking this House towards a lack of democracy and fascism. Independence is now the only way that Scotland can be assured that our right to protest will be retained.

Scotland-Malawi Relationship

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

In calling it ironic, the hon. Gentleman is being kind to those responsible. Whether or not it is ironic, it sure as hell is frustrating and totally unnecessary. I have found myself speaking to Heathrow Border Force staff on a Saturday, with every document that could possibly be required, but it is always the same old story: any ambiguity in any of the information provided is always interpreted to the detriment, not the advantage, of the person seeking entry.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some very good points; I share his frustration in my own constituency cases. Does he agree that it fundamentally undermines the reciprocal nature of the relationship that we can go to Malawi relatively easily, but people from Malawi cannot come here? It is difficult to have a friendship of equals when we do not treat people from Malawi as equals in the immigration system.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. It strikes at the very heart of the nature of the relationship, which ought to be a partnership. I was struck by the last thing Joanna Davies said on Saturday, after I outlined a fraction of what she would have to deal with before her friend’s visit: “When we go there, we have absolutely none of these difficulties.” That is the experience that many of us have had, and I hope the Minister will take on board the hon. Lady’s good point. It is difficult and occasionally impossible to build the sorts of links that I believe the Minister wants, if another part of the Government is operating in a way that undermines the efforts of such groups.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned the 1955 UK-Malawi double taxation treaty. It is to be regretted, to say the least, that we are still speaking about this; I rather thought that we had got beyond that and that we had sufficient undertakings. If there are difficulties at the Malawi end, we need to hear more about them, but surely in a modern agreement the partners should be equal. The characterisation of the 1955 treaty is one of a colonial power to its colony. I hope that when the Minister talks about difficulties coming in each way, that is not an indication of the UK Government’s attitude in the present day.