Demonstrators have disrupted proceedings in the House of Lords as peers debated controversial new protest laws.
The group of around 12 were escorted out of the public gallery by doorkeepers and security staff.
One of the protesters said they were from the environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion.
The protesters were all wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan Protect Human Rights.
The protest came as peers prepared to vote on changes to the Public Order Bill, which is aimed at curbing the guerrilla tactics used by groups such as Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion.
The upper chamber was adjourned for five minutes.
The Public Order Bill would allow police to intervene before protests become “highly disruptive” and give officers greater clarity about dealing with demonstrators blocking roads or slow marching, the Government has said.
Amendments to the Bill are aimed at curbing the guerrilla tactics used by groups such as Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion.
The UK Government has said that the new laws, if passed, would mean police are able to shut down disruptive protests pre-emptively.
The bill already includes the creation of a criminal offence for anyone who seeks to lock themselves onto objects or buildings, and allows courts to restrict the freedom of some protesters to prevent them causing disruption.
The Government later suffered its first defeat in the Lords against its proposed protest law, with peers demanding a higher threshold before crackdown powers can be enforced.
The upper chamber backed by 243 votes to 221, majority 22, a stricter definition of “serious disruption”, which would trigger measures to curb demonstrations.
Proposing the change to the Public Order Bill, Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “I want a serious threshold.”
He added: “We are going to pass legislation here where protests, that all of us would regard as reasonable, all of us would regard as acceptable, are going to be illegal.”
A higher threshold for “serious disruption”, which would enact the provisions of the Bill, was opposed by Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
He said: “The debate is not about whether these measures ban protests. Quite simply they do not.
“What we are trying to ascertain is the point to which protesters can disrupt the lives of the general public. And the Government position is clear – we are on the side of the public.
“The Government wants to protect the rights of the public to go about their daily lives without let or hindrance.
“We are listening to the public who are fed up with seeing day after day protesters blocking roads.
“They make children late for school, they make people miss hospital appointments, they make small businesses struggle. Any change in law must address this.”
Scots often travel to take part in demonstrations, including last year during the Supreme Court battle on whether Scotland could hold a second independence referendum without Westminster's consent.
Among those to slam the plans was Scottish Trade Union Congress general secretary Roz Foyer, who described the UK Government as an “anti-democratic shambles”.
“They weren’t lying when they said they wanted to ‘take back control’; they just meant for politicians, not people”, she said.
“Not content with destroying our right to strike, they’re seeking to impact our wider civil movement who hold power to account and speak truth to power.
“This is yet another dangerous move from a dangerous government that should be scrutinised by all those who hold dear our democracy and the right of assembly.”
In a statement on earlier this month, Rishi Sunak said: “The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, but this is not absolute.
“We cannot have protests conducted by a small minority disrupting the lives of the ordinary public.”
