On 15 September 2004, the House of Commons was suspended after five protesters burst onto the floor of the chamber during a debate on the Hunting Bill. The security breach came on a day of mass protest as the government moved to ban fox hunting.

Between 8,000 to 10,000 demonstrators, organised by the Countryside Alliance, had gathered in Parliament Square to protest against the bill. As the day progressed, the demonstration took a violent turn, with some protesters clashing with police and hurling missiles. 16 members of the public and one police officer were injured in the skirmishes.

Media reports described the “worst scenes of violence in central London since the poll tax riots.”

***

At approximately 4:20 pm, while MPs were debating the bill, four men ran into the commons chamber from behind the speaker’s chair. Another man burst into the chamber through its main entrance. They advanced towards the government frontbench where the rural affairs Minister, Alun Michael, was on duty.

One protestor shouted at Michael: “This isn’t democracy. You are overturning democracy.”

The invaders were eventually wrestled to the ground and the deputy commons speaker, Sylvia Heal, suspended the sitting at 16:22.

The House returned 20 minutes later, with MPs quick to condemn the unprecedented incursion. Labour MP David Winnick regretted the “disgraceful act of hooliganism” by those he called “thugs”.

Heal described the invasion as a “very serious incident”.

In a statement on the evening of 15 September, commons speaker Michael Martin told MPs: “Eight men gained access through St. Stephen’s entrance, using a forged letter inviting them to a meeting on the committee corridor.

“Once there, they were led to the small stairway at the north end of the corridor, probably by a passholder, who was clearly exceeding his or her authority. On the stairway, the men took off their jackets and left them behind.”

He added: “The eight men have been detained and are being interviewed by the police. When it was last reported to me, none of them had provided the police with his true name and address. None of the intruders possessed any offensive weapons.”

The intrusion, Martin said, was a “carefully planned operation”.

That evening, the Hunting Bill received both its second reading (by 356 votes to 166) and third readings (by 339 to 155).

It later emerged that the men had donned builders’ outfits, including fluorescent jackets and hard hats, and gained entry after telling police and security they were there to do renovations.

Having dumped their disguise in a committee room, their T-shirts – emblazoned with the message “FCUK the bill” – were fully visible.

***

The stunt marked the first invasion of the commons chamber since King Charles I in 1641 – a fact Labour MP Stuart Bell referenced upon the House’s return. “Is it not a fact that not since Charles I came to this House has there been such an invasion?”, he asked.

The intrusion was the second serious breach of parliamentary security in four months. In May, Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) disrupted a session of prime minister’s questions with condoms full of purple flour four months earlier.

The anti-hunt stunt also came two days after a F4J protester dressed as Batman climbed up a ledge at the front of Buckingham Palace.

A Countryside Alliance spokesperson said that while some of those who went into the chamber were members, they were acting as individuals.

The spokesperson added: “In fact, we condemn this demonstration, which was selfish and self indulgent and took away from the actions of 20,000 law abiding protesters.”

However, the Parliament Square rally’s compere commented: “Well done, you have suspended business in there and that can only be good.”

Liam Fox, chair of the Conservative Party, responded: “Following Monday at Buckingham Palace and today at the House of Commons, serious questions need to be asked about how secure our major institutions are.”

Labour MP John McWilliam said: “We were supposed to have a tightening up of security after the purple powder escapade.

“Clearly, it has not happened, especially on a day when the threat was materially higher than on that occasion.”

Eight protestors, including Otis Ferry, the 22-year-old son of rockstar Bryan Ferry, were later convicted of violating the Public Order Act. After a four-day trial in May 2005, the men received an 18-month conditional discharge and were ordered to pay £350 costs each.

The defendants claimed they had taken part in a peaceful demonstration. One said he sat down next to Michael, and said: “Right ho, let’s have a debate then.”

Heal, the deputy speaker on duty, told the court she feared for the safety of Michael and Elliot Morley, the minister sitting next to him.

Commons doorkeeper Daniel Scanlon said: “I thought it was some sort of terror attack.”

In an article for the Guardian, published 28 September 2004, protestor John Holliday described the group’s tactics, writing: “Our memorable incursion into the commons very nearly did not happen, as its execution was more akin to an Ealing comedy than Mission: Impossible.

“The master plan was basic in the extreme: we would blag our way in, walk confidently and look as if we were meant to be there. It worked better than we could have imagined – I have had more difficulty trying to get into the Owners and Trainers Bar at Cheltenham, where I actually know people on the inside.”

He added: “People must stand together to fight this attack on our freedom.”

***

In 2003, an identical anti-hunting bill had been passed by the commons and blocked by the Lords, which was bitterly opposed to the plan.

Opening the 15 September debate, Michael told the House: “This bill is identical to the bill to which this House gave a third reading on 9 July 2003…

“The House of Lords did not complete its proceedings on the bill before the end of the previous session, although it had the time to do so. The government are now bringing the bill back to enable this House, if it so chooses, to insist on the bill and, if it is again rejected by the House of Lords, to pass it under the [Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949].”

After receiving its second and third reading on the same day, the Hunting Bill duly progressed to the House of Lords. Peers tried once more to amend the bill to allow regulated hunting of foxes to continue.

On 17 November 2004, MPs rejected the move by 321 votes to 204.

In the end, the government was forced to invoke the Parliament Acts in order to secure the bill’s passage.

The Hunting Act 2004 subsequently received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004 and came into effect in February 2005.

The Hunting Act 2004 is one of seven bills that have entered the statute book according to this fraught procedure.

The others are as follows: the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Welsh Church Act 1914 and the Parliament Act 1949 (according to the 1911 act alone); the War Crimes Act 1991, European Parliament Elections Act 1999, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, and Hunting Act 2004 (according to both the 1911 and 1949 acts).