New clause 3 - Aggravated trespass
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
2:30 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We now come to a rather different issue, although it fits with part 4 of the Bill because it has to do with dispersal of groups. In introducing the new clauses, I welcome formally the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to the first sitting of the Committee in which he has participated. I am sure that he will follow the pattern of constructive engagement shown by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am sorry that we did not reach the new clauses this morning, because the hon. Gentleman was prepared to respond to them, and I am sure that he would have been helpful. I do not in any way doubt that this Minister will be helpful, but he would be the first to acknowledge that this is not his master subject.
I tabled the new clauses largely because of experiences that I have had in and around my constituency and representations made to me about the workings of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Public Order Act 1986 as they affect the control of animal rights demonstrations. My constituency is at the leading edge of biotechnological developments. Huntingdon Life Sciences, of which I should think every hon. Member has heard, is located just outside my constituency, but many of its employees are my constituents. A number of other institutions either engage in such research or commission it, so they are seriously affected by the activities of so-called animal rights activists. Now is not the occasion to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of their cause or of animal experimentation, nor indeed of the controlling legislation passed by the Conservative Government when we were in office. However, I believe it to be robust in controlling experiments.
I am seeking to amend two pieces of legislation with these two new clauses to deal with the activities of
protestors whose behaviour can be not just antisocial but threatening, and, on occasions, dangerous. There have been many physical attacks on those who either work in animal research or simply service companies engaged in animal research. It has gone beyond direct employees to others who may be linked to it, their firms of auditors, and so on. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there have been cases of firebombing and serious damage to property.
That is clearly already illegal, and I do not seek to address those issues. However, below that level of violence there is a serious, significant threat of violence, intimidation and harassment, which are themes that run through the Bill, hence its relevance. I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing us to debate these new clauses. I hear from people involved in the sector that when they are going about their daily business and doing their job they are constantly intimidated and harassed. I will not pretend that if the Government accepted these new clauses they would solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.
These helpful proposals have been made by the BioIndustry Association. We see groups of protestors invading private property and shouting threats and abuse. They often enter commercial premises and run amok. The new clauses would help to address that. They stem from many conversations that I have had with affected businesses and, as I said, with the BioIndustry Association.
New clause 3 extends the situation in which the offence of aggravated trespass and its associated powers to remove can be implemented. The legislation as currently enacted restricts the offence of aggravated trespass to the open air. I want to amend it to ensure that it includes entering private commercial premises, which may be in the open air; not in the countryside or whatever but on private property. I also want to ensure in the insertion to section 68(5) that it could mean within buildings erected on such property. I realise that that would be a significant extension, but as I tried to explain to the Committee a few moments ago, it is a problem if a bunch of so-called animal rights protestors invade laboratories or whatever and threaten the people who work there going about their daily business. In such cases the police need the power to deal with aggravated trespass.
New clause 4 seeks to amend an older piece of legislation: the Public Order Act 1986. It seeks to reduce the number of people involved in a trespassory assembly from 20 to three. That is my proposal, although one could select any very low number. The reason is straightforward: whereas the 1994 Act amended the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce the prohibition of trespassory assemblies, it allowed chief officers to apply to the council for an order to prohibit an assembly, but the assembly had to consist of at least 20 people.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate the point made to me by many constituents: that one does not need many people standing on one's front lawn or drive to be extremely intimidated and harassed. Twenty is far too excessive a number. That is
why I propose in new clause 4 to reduce the figure from 20 to three. If one were faced with people standing immediately outside one's home or next to the gate of entry into work shouting and screaming abuse, one would be entitled to expect protection from not only any physical violence but verbal assaults, threats and intimidation.
I know from my constituents how extremely frightened some of them have become because of the activities of groups of people who appear close to their homes to shout abuse and threaten violence. Many of my constituents live in fear of their lives because of the invaluable work that they do. They do their best to keep their addresses and phone numbers confidential but, inevitably, that is not always possible. It is also not right that they have to try to do that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation—now is not the time to go into them—we should provide protection and not allow people to be intimidated, harassed or threatened for doing what they are legally employed to do.
I hope that the Minister understands the serious points that I am trying to make. We discussed them in a Westminster Hall debate a few months ago, and I know that the Government are examining what they can do. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that they have done already in protecting people, especially the employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences. However, more can be done, and the two new clauses are further steps. I hope that the Government will treat them sympathetically.