Third Report - Policing of protests

There is a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of others to go about their everyday lives and to feel safe. The police should have the appropriate powers to safeguard the exercise of both these rights. The differing scale, nature and frequency of protests over recent years has led to increased scrutiny of the way in which the right to protest is exercised and policed.

Disruptive tactics by protest organisers led to the Government enacting new legislation to provide the police with more powers, via the Public Order Act 2023. Some of these powers were used for the first time during the policing of the King’s Coronation, but the occasion was not necessarily a good test of the effectiveness of these new powers as it did not involve large-scale use of the kind of tactics the Act was intended to address.

We recommend that the Government carries out post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, to begin two years after it received Royal Assent. (Paragraph 24) Israel-Gaza protests

Whilst we respect the right to protest, we are clear that no one, including elected representatives, their families, and their staff, should be made to feel unsafe by protest activity outside their home. Likewise, no one should be intimidated when they are coming and going from their place of work. AC Twist said: “Places of work seem to be a legitimate place to protest.” However, MPs have raised concerns about the impact on the staff who work in their offices, who are facing intimidation and violent attacks. We were pleased to hear the Met reiterate that in a democratic society elected representatives must be able to do their job in accordance with their consciences, and free from intimidation.

We are aware that Lord Walney’s review, which will look at whether powers for enhanced protection for public spaces could be extended to offices of elected representatives, is with the Home Office. We look forward to a much more urgent response from the Government.

There is clearly a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of people to go about their daily lives. We wholeheartedly support both these rights and recognise that finding the balance between competing rights can be challenging, particularly in terms of operational policing on the ground. In the context of the policing of recent Israel-Gaza protests, as with the policing of the King’s Coronation protests, we conclude that this balance was generally maintained, even if individual incidents inevitably tested that balance. Likewise, while the ongoing protests have tested the operational independence of the police, as have some of the communications around the protests, we conclude that it has ultimately been maintained. (Paragraph 66) Policing of protests 41

The repetitive nature of the recent large Israel-Gaza protests places considerable resource constraints on the police. This places additional pressure on the Met, which, having failed to meet the Uplift target, already struggles to meet the regular demands of policing London. The protests further drain police resource with more than 4,000 cancelled rest-days, and the same police officers being deployed week in, week out. We are concerned both about the effect on other aspects of policing, and about the human impact and the wellbeing of these police officers. With many officers regularly being deployed from outside of the Met, and should these protests continue indefinitely, it stands to reason that forces across the country will be less able to carry out the everyday neighbourhood and response policing that is so vital to the public.

Should these protests continue week after week, the Home Office should consider amending requirements for protest organisers, such as increasing the notice period for protest organisers to inform the police from the current six days, to allow the police to prepare better.

Following the policing priorities inquiry, we concluded that it was no longer sufficient for individual police forces to design their own workforce plans and recommended that the Home Office set out and implement a national workforce strategy that addresses officer and staff numbers and skills. The resource demands of the policing of recent protests demonstrate again that a wider national workforce plan is needed.

We again recommend that the Home Office set out a workforce plan and strategy for policing over the next ten years as a matter of urgency. As previously set out, the plan should address officer and staff numbers and skills and particular attention should be placed on recognised areas of shortage. London has unique challenges in this respect, including the policing of protest, which should be taken into consideration. The plan should be subject to periodic review and impact analysis.

In the absence of a national workforce plan and strategy, the Home Office and partners within policing must review the Strategic Policing Requirement and supporting documents, to ensure that public order requirements and operating models remain fit for purpose in the face of evolving approaches to protest.

We recently called for an urgent review and update of the Police Allocation Formula, setting out points for future review in advance to facilitate effective planning by PCCs and forces. The Home Office must ensure that police funding recognises the true nature of demand upon the service and provides the resource it needs to meet them. (Paragraph 72) Hate crime and terrorist offences

We are seriously concerned about the rise in the number of reported hate crimes since 7 October 2023, as well as the further significant resource needed for the police to respond to them. It is unsatisfactory that the Government has not published its new plan for tackling hate crime since the previous action plan lapsed in 2020, especially as the former Minister for Safeguarding, Rachel Maclean MP, confirmed in 2022 the Government was planning to do so. (Paragraph 111) 42 Policing of protests

The Government must set out in its response to our report when it intends to publish an updated strategy for tackling hate crime.

The Government has commissioned reports to increase the evidence base in the complex areas of law where the right to freedom of speech intersects with the need for all communities to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. Having commissioned these reports using public money, we expect the Government to publish a response to demonstrate that it has taken account of that evidence. The failure to respond, as well as to other Government commissioned reports such as Sir Tom Winsor’s review on the departure of the previous Met Police Commissioner, demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that we are very concerned about.

We find it surprising that the Government has not yet responded to the reports it commissioned from the Commission for Countering Extremism regarding hateful extremism, particularly the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by Dame Sara Khan and Sir Mark Rowley. Sir John Saunders in his report in 2023 rightly said that the Home Office should respond as a matter of urgency. The Home Office must, without fail, publish its response to the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by no later than the end of April 2024.

We recognise the work completed by Lord Walney in his role as the independent adviser on political violence and disruption. Given that the review considers evidence relating to the ongoing protests, the Home Office should consider and publish its response to his report as a matter of priority, and respond to his review by no later than the end of May 2024. (Paragraph 115) Policing of protests 43