Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Police could be handed sweeping powers to restrict protests and encourage the organisers of demonstrations to limit disruptions, under proposals being considered by UK ministers.
James Cleverly, home secretary, said he will examine the merits of 41 recommendations made by the government’s independent adviser on tackling political violence in a report published on Tuesday.
The report from former Labour MP John Woodcock, who now sits as crossbench peer Lord Walney, draws on work from the past three years.
However, the issue of public protests and their policing has become more politically charged since a number of pro-Palestinian marches in London following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, and the subsequent conflict in Gaza.
Cleverly on Tuesday welcomed the report and highlighted two potential measures, both of which will have a bearing on future protests if implemented.
The report recommended lowering the threshold at which protests can be blocked, on account of the “cumulative impact of serious disruption, or where there is the threat of intimidating or abusive conduct based on the persistence of previous arrests”.
A second recommendation was protest organisers should face greater responsibility to prevent disruptions during their events.
The report also said police should be allowed to consider their available resources when setting conditions for demonstrations, in order to ensure wider public safety beyond protests.
Other proposals made by Woodcock in his 291-page review included forcing protest organisers to pay towards policing them, and a review of undercover surveillance of activist groups.
There should be a blanket ban on face coverings at demonstrations, while the government should also make it easier for businesses and the public to claim damages from campaigners who cause disruption, he also proposed.
However, ministers only have a limited time to bring in new measures before an election expected this year, and any changes must still comply with the law.
Earlier on Tuesday the High Court ruled that Home Office changes to regulations, which lowered the threshold for police intervening in protests, were unlawful.
The Financial Times first reported in February that Woodcock would call for special police orders to swiftly shut down public protests around democratic venues including parliament, council buildings and MPs’ offices.
In a written ministerial statement responding to the report, the home secretary said it showed “political intimidation and the incitement of hatred by extremist groups and individuals are inhibiting the essential rights and freedoms” of the public and elected politicians. “We must be prepared to stand up for our shared values in all circumstances, no matter how difficult,” Cleverly added.
Earlier this month Woodcock told the FT his review would also propose banning activists from holding protests near defence manufacturing and energy sites.
This followed protests by green campaign groups such as Just Stop Oil around sites related to fossil fuel extraction, as well as pro-Palestinian activists belonging to movements such as Palestine Action, who targeted UK defence facilities linked to the Israeli arms trade.
However, ahead of the publication of his review, activists accused Woodcock of a conflict of interest because of his business interests.
The House of Lords register of interest records he has paid jobs for companies that also act for clients in the fossil fuel and defence sectors.
Woodcock has denied the allegation, first reported by the Guardian, insisting he had “consistently applied an objective standard and sought a wide range of perspectives, including through a formal call for evidence and analysis of public opinion through polling exercises”.
