Lords Chamber

Monday 9th March 2026

(began 3 hours, 52 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
None Portrait Legislation: Tobacco and Vapes Bill - third reading
-

Will now make a short statement
15:35
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
on the position regarding legislative consent on this bill. The bill is UK wide and it's being The bill is UK wide and it's being developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. A legislative consent motion was received from the motion was received from the Northern Ireland Assembly on the 10th of February, 2025, from the 10th of February, 2025, from the Scottish Parliament on the 29th of May 2025, and the Senedd on the 9th of December 2025.

Following further amendments to the Bill during Report stage. Supplementary legislative consent motions have been sought from the Scottish Parliament and Senedd. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. However, noting the strong support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, we are hopeful that this process will conclude shortly. The Northern Ireland Executive has confirmed their current legislative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consent motion is sufficient. I beg to move. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contrary not content. The contents have it in schedule 16,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it in schedule 16, amendment one. Baroness Mone. My Lords, I beg to move amendment one, amendments 1 to 5 are minor and technical and stem from the amendments that the government made at Report stage on advertising. The amendments ensure consistency across the advertising related restrictions in the Communications Act 2003. In particular, the amendments will ensure that a business who manufactures or sells more than one type of product, such as both vaping products and nicotine products, is in scope of the restrictions on sponsorship of prohibited products.

It was always the government's intention to capture any business who manufactures or sells prohibited products, no matter how many different types of products they sold or manufactured. The amendments therefore provide consistency across the advertising related restrictions and prevent the creation of a potential loophole. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in schedule

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in schedule 16. Sorry. Amendment proposed. OK and amendment. There's no debate, so you don't need to respond. So. Amendment proposed. The question is Amendment proposed. The question is that. Amendment one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The content have it. Amendment two Baroness Merron moved moved formally. The question is that amendment two be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment three Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that amendment three be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it amendment amendment four Baroness Mone. The question is that amendment four be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the question the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment five Baroness Merron moved formally.

The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It has been a privilege to take this landmark bill through your Lordships House. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health and disability and ill health and tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year. And whilst tobacco remains the greatest threat, this legislation is about protecting future generations not only from the harms of tobacco but from nicotine addiction.

My Lords, I want to extend my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed from right across the House, in particular to the front benches, to the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord Earl Russell. My thanks also to the Secretary of State for his leadership and support, and to former Minister Ashley Dalton MP, who advanced this bill to your Lordships House. And I also want to pay tribute, as many of us do, to former Prime Minister the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak for his ambition towards a smoke free generation.

My Lords, I express my thanks also to the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, for his expertise and unwavering focus, and to all of the officials who have played a crucial role, including the bill, team, policy, teams, analysts, the bill's senior responsible owners, my private office and the invaluable contributions of the government legal department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Finally, my Lords, I pay tribute to the Ministers and officials from the devolved governments for their collaborative approach.

This, my Lords, is genuinely a Four Nations bill ensuring that we create a smoke free generation and tackle youth vaping in every corner of our youth vaping in every corner of our country. I beg to move EA.
15:42
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
So the question is that the bill do now pass. do now pass. >> My Lords, we have now reached the conclusion of a piece of legislation which many will see as legislation which many will see as a landmark bill. So can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed throughout the various stages of the Bill's journey through your Lordships House, a journey which began with its introduction as long ago as March last year. My Lords, from these benches and others, we heard a range of views on the various proposals in the Bill and indeed on the Bill itself.

For some it goes too far, for others it does not go far enough. But amongst all those disagreements, there are three points that I think noble Lords could agree on. The first is that smoking is bad for your health. Secondly, current evidence shows that vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco. And thirdly, not vaping is healthier than vaping. Now, beyond that, our debates covered a number of issues, from from the evidence base to how to make vapes an attractive alternative to adults who wish to quit smoking while not appealing to children, as well as debating issues of matters of individual liberty, we also debated the illicit sales of tobacco, the treatment of specialist retailers, cigarette filters, the compatibility of this bill with the Windsor framework, and the enforcement of a regulatory regime of considerable complexity.

But we also probed the government on evidence behind some of the proposals, for example, on the relative harm of heated tobacco compared to combustible tobacco. For those smokers who tried vapes but did not like them, so reverted back to cigarettes. And while we did not always agree. Can I thank the noble Lady of the Minister and her officials for meeting with my noble friend Lord Howard myself throughout the passage of the bill? Can I particularly thank the Minister for the concessions made during the bill's passage? The amendment permitting vape vending machines in secure mental health settings is one that we particularly welcome.

These are vulnerable people in restricted environments for whom access to cessation aids is not a luxury, but a genuine health need. And it was right that the bill was amended accordingly. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lindsay and other noble Lords who have consistently made the case for specialist tobacconists throughout this process. These are small, responsible businesses serving adult consumers, some of whom travel specifically to London from all over the world to sample and purchase high value, hand-crafted cigars.

These are cigars which are quite distinct from the much less affordable than sorry, much less affordable than cigarillos and machine made cigars that form part of the tobacco market that this bill principally targets. I hope the government will continue to bear that distinction in mind as secondary legislation is developed, and it is on secondary legislation that I wish to sound a note of caution, because a very significant portion of the bill's practical effects will be determined not by what Parliament has already debated, but by regulations yet to be laid.

The rules governing vape distributors, flavours, advertising restrictions and the designation of vape free zones all remain to be settled by Ministers. Now that is a considerable degree of delegated power. It is power that the government have argued is a necessary one to allow them to collect the evidence. And while we see that there may be merit in that argument, we on these benches will be monitoring the development of these regulations particularly carefully. But our concerns can be summarised relatively easily. We want regulations to be grounded in evidence.

Regulations must not impose unnecessary burdens on retailers, especially corner shops and other small retailers, and must not impose burdens on the hospitality sector. And regulations must recognise concerns of former smokers who rely on particular vape products and descriptors as part of their pathway from smoking, and not ban products that might make smoking cessation more difficult. We particularly welcome the commitment to review of this act after a reasonable period of years. That review will matter. The generational ban may, over time contribute to reduced smoking rates, but the risk of unintended consequences is real.

The illicit tobacco market, by some accounts, continues to grow, and a permanent and ever widening prohibition on tobacco sales to an increasing share of the adult population may drive some market. So we hope that any review examines such questions honestly and not with a pre-determined response, whatever the evidence. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his advice and for his contributions to the debate, but also thank all those organisations, whatever their views, who shared their briefings with my noble friend Lord Howell and me and other noble Lords at every stage of the Bill's progress.

Of course, it is never possible to satisfy all points of view, but I hope that they will feel that we thoroughly debated the issues that they raised. And I also hope that whatever one thinks of this bill, these measures will help those smokers who wish to quit. They will reduce the attractiveness of taking up smoking, particularly in our youth, and they will improve the health of our nation.
15:47
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I speak from my >> My Lords, I speak from my benches as Baroness Walmsley as unable to be here today, as she is presently chairing a committee. We have reached the final stages of this landmark piece of public health legislation, and I want to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the Minister and her officials for the constructive engagement. Throughout. This has been a challenging and a complex piece of legislation, and the collaborative spirit and cross-party scrutiny shown across this House has undoubtedly helped to strengthen the Bill.

I also want to personally thank Baroness Walmsley for her outstanding leadership of our team, her diligent negotiation and a clear focus on public health throughout the bill. I also extend my thanks to Baroness Northover and the rest of the team who worked on the bill, and I thank Adam Bull in our whips office for his guidance and support throughout. From the very start, we have been proud to support this Bill and the principles underpinning it. The creation of a smoke free generation.

The generational ban is bold, evidence based and one of the most significant steps any of us will probably take as parliamentarians in our lifetimes to improve the nation's health and wellbeing. It will help ensure that future generations never start on the path to addiction and as and the devastating consequences that surely follow. We are pleased that throughout our discussions, a number of improvements have been secured. Local authorities will now retain the full proceeds of the 2500 pounds fixed penalty notices from licensing offences, giving trading standards the resources they need for effective enforcement.

The government has also taken new powers to regulate or ban cigarette filters, recognising growing concerns about the false perception of safety they create and their environmental impact. To support to support smoking cessation, a new defence will allow public authorities to partner with businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products for public health purposes. The narrow exemption introduced for vape vending machines in adult mental health hospitals is also welcome, ensuring an appropriate balance between safeguarding and supporting cessation in secure settings.

We also welcome the government acceptance of the Delegated powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations to upgrade the parliamentary procedure for age verification regulations to affirmative, and the commitment to a formal statutory review within 4 to 7 years of Royal Assent. My Lords, the recently launched consultation on smoke free heated tobacco and vape free places also sends an important signal about the government's intention to maintain momentum in this area. However, there are there is still more to do. We regret that the government did not accept the cross-party proposals for a levy on big tobacco companies profits to fund cessation and related healthcare, and we believe that further action is essential to keep vapes out of the hands of our children, and to bring forward a proper ban on disposable vapes.

This bill lays the foundations for a generational shift in public health. It will only reach its potential if implemented with care, attention and the continued cross-party resolve. My Lords, this is a landmark piece of legislation and we are proud to have supported it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many as are of that do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it report of the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. To move the House. Do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider the bill further on report. The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it before. Clause one. One. Three. Amendment 369. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in opening this group I will speak principally to amendment 369, which is in my name, and the names of my noble friend Baroness Doocey, the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. But I will also speak to amendment 36983, 72A, B, and C, to amendment 36983, 72A, B, and C, and 373. My Lords, Amendment 369 brings to this Report stage our amendment calling for a strong
15:52
15:52
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Report stage. That has even started to persuade us on these benches that this bill does not need within it a strong statement of a statutory right to protest, which would both supplement and would both supplement and complement rights of the citizen under the XR. Our amendment 369 is co-signed by Lady Ducey and others. As I've said, and I accept entirely that the right to protest is in part at least enshrined in articles ten and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, article ten on freedom of expression, and article 11 on freedom of assembly and association.

But as I mentioned in committee, the convention rights are circumscribed because there may be, and I quote, subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the protection of prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. My Lords, a significant feature of the rights under the convention is that the degree to which the European Court of Human Rights may interpret or enforce those rights is subject to what's known as the margin of appreciation accorded to individual signatory countries to decide how they, as nation states, interpret and enforce those rights.

And it's only where countries stray beyond that margin of appreciation that the European Court of Human Rights will hold a signatory nation in breach. What our amendment would do that is new and not encompassed by the convention, is to make it absolutely clear that in this jurisdiction, public authorities have a threefold duty in relation to protest. First, to respect, secondly, to protect, and thirdly, to facilitate the right to protest. That duty is dynamic and positive, and our amendment is an important and clear statement of what every citizen would have a right to expect and insist upon from government, local and national.

Under our amendment, government would have a duty to act which is far stronger merely than a duty to refrain from interfering, and such a firm statement would be a more powerful protection than the convention rights, precisely because the margin of appreciation of which I spoke would be irrelevant. And I need only remind the government that it is their own express view that how we determine and apply the limits of article eight on the right to respect for private and family life is open to discussion and a proper area for domestic legislation, which they propose to introduce in order to limit the way in which article eight might act within the margin of appreciation.

That is their stated position in the context of immigration law. That is a position that the government is entitled, in my view, to take under the European Convention. But there is a risk that more extreme governments might push the boundaries of what is acceptable in the context of other human rights, including the rights under article ten and 11 as well. Members will no doubt remember that at committee there was clear agreement around the House that whether dealing with convention rights, all rights under our amendment, we would have to strike a balance between the stated rights, on the one hand, and the applications of the limitation, either under the convention, in the case of the ECHR rights, or under domestic legislation, if it were amended.

As we seek, my Lords. But there's one specific area where that distinction may be important. The convention in both articles ten and 11, Permits of Restrictions for the Protection of Morals, as was apparent from the passage I quoted. That is not an area where, in a society as diverse as ours, with mixed secular and faith based belief systems and philosophies as ours is, we on these benches would wish to see, let alone advocate, a derogation from the convention rights or a restriction for from our rights for the protection of morals.

Our amendment would not permit a derogation or restriction on that ground alone. My Lords, we also discuss the possibility in committee that future governments might not be as enlightened as our present government at no doubt is, and I fear that we can see the possibility that a future government, more extreme than this one, might wish to introduce freedoms of speech or assembly. The noble Lord Lord Hanson, speaking for the government in committee, expressed optimism that that would not happen.

And he said, well, if the government's elected, they could do what they like was more or less what he said. I am not so sure. And I say in answer to that point of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, let's make it more difficult to change the citizens rights for the worse while we can. There was also discussion in committee as to whether there might not be differences between the convention rights under our amendment, and the suggestion was made by some that that would give rise for to satellite litigation.

For my part, I do not believe that the convention rights would in any sense either clash with or limit the rights of people in this country under the clear rights that would be enshrined in domestic law pursuant to our amendment. On a practical level, I acknowledge them and acknowledge now that policing protests can be an expensive exercise, and that it sometimes difficult for the police to draw a balance. And it's a balance that often has to be drawn in advance between over policing, protests and under policing.

But that makes it even more important to spell out in clear terms, what is the right to protest, so that the police and local authorities may be accorded the necessary resources for them to
15:59
None Portrait Amendment:369 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

carry out that duty to respect, protect and facilitate protest? My protect and facilitate protest? My Lords, noisy protests, of which we've heard much repeated protests. Protests in unpopular causes. These Protests in unpopular causes. These are and have been for centuries in this country, part of the stuff of this country, part of the stuff of life in our democracy. We've seen what the High Court thought of the arrest of so many peaceful arrest of so many peaceful protesters last year. What happens next remains to be seen, but it's not a question of what we may think of their cause.

It's a question of not stifling their rights. And these are rights that are fundamental to our way of life, which should be protected with determination and clarity. My Lords, turning to the other amendments in this group, which have been the responsibility of those on these benches, amendment 369 A to B, moved by my noble friend Lord Strasburger on face coverings at protests, is a minimalist position of support for the right to attend a protest without revealing the identity of the protester, allowing the protester to appear in disguise.

And that would be by allowing a defence of a reasonable excuse for wearing a face covering. It is a just a fact that people may have many legitimate reasons for disguising themselves. They may not want employers, teachers, parents, partners, political opponents or, in the case of people in public life, merely members of the public to recognise them or be aware of their attendance at a protest. And why not? I can see and we can see no justification for a limitation of that, right, unless it is for camera surveillance, to which we'll turn later today, which we regard as pretty unjustified anyway, without really serious regulation, of which there is at the moment not a whit.

My Lords, Amendment 372 A, B and C in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, are intended to ensure that clause 139, which is to restrict protests in the vicinity of places of worship, would succeed in protecting worshippers and members of religious communities, carrying out religious activities at places of worship, while avoiding the problem that frankly affects the clause as unamended. And that problem is that the unamended clause would enable the restriction of protests in the vicinity of places of worship, which protests are unconnected with either worshippers of that place of worship, or with the act of worship or other religious activities in that place.

It is true that there is a condition in the bill as drafted, that reasonable persons of reasonable firmness should be deterred from worshipping there, or carrying out religious activities before the right to restrict would kick in. But that could be the case in any demonstration that was local that might keep people of reasonable firmness away. The reality is that what the government was trying to do when they drafted that clause was to protect worshippers from sectarian demonstrations by opponents of those worshippers, and from hate speech.

It is about, as was rightly acknowledged, protecting Jewish people near synagogues, Muslims at mosques. It's about protecting religious against religious discrimination. But I regret that we may hear from the Minister the suggestion that we should agree to this clause without the specificity that is provided by our amendments, and they put that on the basis that the police don't have to make a distinction. That was the basis that was raised at Committee stage. It's up to them. It is said, but this bill is about making appropriate provision in law for the police to have powers to restrict protests in particular circumstances.

And in those circumstances only. It is no answer to an objection that the bill is too wide, that the police do not have to use excessive powers that are granted to them. We have always been astute in this country to restrict police powers, and not to give the police discretion that they do not need to use. To do otherwise would be to substitute the discretion of the police for the definition in law of police powers. Now, I completely agree with those who say, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has pointed out on many occasions that the police are granted a difficult job, but it is not for government to say to the police, you can have these powers and you have to decide when to use them.

It is for Parliament to establish powers that are restricted to what is needed, and to legislate on any other business basis would be inimical to the rule of law, of which the proper definition of police powers is a necessary feature. My Lords, Amendment 373. In my name and the names of my noble friends Baroness Doocey and Lord Strasburger, would remove clause 140 from the bill, and clause 140, as noble Lords will remember, deals with the question of cumulative disruption allegedly caused by protests.

My Lords, many protests cause disruption, disruption by noise, by large numbers of people, by the occasional difficulties to get through the traffic or through crowds, even by roads being blocked or tube stations being difficult to access. There are difficulties with passage when protests are about all these things are the normal incidents of protests. They are the price we pay for our democratic right to protest. So what is the difference between one protest which doesn't give right to, to to such a restriction as is suggested or repeated protests? And it is that repeated protests are often required to persuade government or authority that something must be done.

So repeated protests are, of their nature, more likely to be justified and more likely to be effective, whether that be farmers protesting against inheritance tax repeatedly in central London or marches against the Iraq War, or any number of protests in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord Lord Gove shakes his head. But that is a fact. When we look back at the history of protests in this country, repeated protests have the utility that they are more likely to be effective. Protest movements take time to build up momentum, and that momentum is an important part of their future success.

The more justified the protest, the more likely it is to be effective. And we say, the more likely it is to be repeated and repeated in the same area. So this clause, clause 140 is, we say, an oppressive clause. It would provide the police with the powers to restrict the very protests that are most likely to be justified and effective. There's no way of curing it, and we should have none of it. My Lords, I beg to
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
resolution, my Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 369A, which we've just been discussing, which we've just been discussing, which is in my name, and also to is in my name, and also to amendments 372 A, B, and C, and amendment three, seven, three. So amendment three, seven, three. So all of which I've added my name, my Lords, regarding amendment 369, a Lords, regarding amendment 369, a clause 133 seeks to create a new offence of concealed identity at protests.

If this clause were enacted, as it stands, the police would be empowered to ban all face coverings at a protest, with only some limited exceptions concerning the person's health, religion or work. My Lords, there are many other categories of perfectly law abiding citizens who may have good reasons to conceal their identities at protest. For example, those protesting against a hostile foreign state who feared retribution for themselves or their families, or those who might be criticising their own religious or cultural communities or survivors of sexual violence or domestic abuse who need to stay below the radar for their own safety.

None of those are covered by the limited exemptions in clause one three, three. To solve this problem, amendment 369 would provide a defence of reasonable excuse for the offence of concealing identity at process protests, thereby putting the burden on police officers to justify why they believe. Wearing a face covering at a protest made this suspect arrestable. This amendment strikes a careful balance between allowing the police to prevent public disorder while protecting the many law abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons for wanting to exercise their freedom of expression anonymously.

I will now turn to amendments 372 A, B, and C in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks and which I have signed. Clause 139 of the bill would seem to have been drafted to give reassurance to Jews and Muslims and other denominations, that they can attend their place of worship without feeling intimidated by protests in the vicinity of their synagogue or mosque, church or whatever. That sounds to me like a laudable objective. What's not to like? Well, my Lords, the difficulty is the severe unintended consequence caused by the drafting, the sheer number of places of worship in a country is as old, religiously diverse and densely populated as Britain that could inadvertently become no protest zones is enormous.

Here in Westminster, Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square are both in the vicinity of one or more churches, and yet they frequently host major demonstrations. They could become off limits. There would be a few. There would be few, if any, large spaces in central London, or any other city that would escape the risk posed by clause one three, three of being ruled too close to a place of worship for a demonstration to be allowed. The government may well say, well, that's not the intention of clause 139, but that's exactly what the clause as drafted permits a senior officer to do.

My Lords, Amendments 372 A, B and C solve the problem by making a ban on protest near a place of worship possible only when the protest is directed at or connected with a place of worship, or persons likely to worship there. So demonstrations that are unconnected with a nearby place of worship or in its vicinity, purely by coincidence, will be unaffected by clause 139. Problem solved. Turning to clause 140, this would amend the Public Order Act 1986 to impose a duty on police to consider the so-called cumulative disruption resulting from repeated protests in a given area.

Clause 140 would give the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protest. If these are expected to be too disruptive. My Lords, clause 140 represents a grievous attack on the right to protest, a right that is vital to our democracy. It is overly it's overly broad framework would empower the police to routinely kerb freedom of expression and assembly as exercised through peaceful protests. It was significantly expand the definition of serious disruption. This would allow the police to pre-emptively prohibit peaceful demonstrations if, in their opinion, an area has been the site of too many protests.

That's a very broad discretion. Presumably it would apply if the protests in question were organised by different groups who advocate for different causes. This could create a first come, first serve version of free speech, where areas are given what can be described as a protest allowance at the whim of the local constabulary. Furthermore, clause 140 leaves the definition of the area in question entirely at the discretion of the police. So this power would permit the police to move a demonstration to a different part of the same square.

Another part of town, or even a difficult to reach rural area. Similarly, clause 140 does not specify within what time frame disruption would have to be repeated to be considered cumulative. The suggestion that so-called cumulative disruption should be taken into account in considering conditions for restrictions or prohibitions on protests, is also disproportionate. Why should one person's right to protest be extinguished simply because somebody else has already protest in the same location about the same cause, or a different one? My Lords, this power would, if enacted, give the police the power to ban or curtail repeated process which are likely to be on the most important causes, the ones most worthy of protest and the ones most protected by the courts.

No protest movement has ever brought about change through a single demonstration. The civil rights suffragettes and anti-apartheid movements relied on repeated cumulative demonstrations. This clause gives the police far too much discretion to curtail and prevent peaceful protest on the most important matters. My Lords, clause 140 is a bad idea, badly drafted and with many bad outcomes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It should not stand part of the bill. My Lords. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise. To speak to my amendments in this group. But before I do, I would like to say that I like to would like to say that I like to read. A long time ago, more than 70 years ago, I learnt to read before I went to school. And I've got to I went to school. And I've got to say this alphabet soup of a bill is quite confusing, and part of that is the fact that so many people disagree with it.

And I think the disagree with it. And I think the noble Lord Lord Hanson, perhaps should be aware that it's moderately unusual to have this many amendments, and it perhaps would help if he accepted 1 or 2. And obviously all of my amendments are incredibly reasonable, and I would, you know, would urge him to to pick them up. My First Amendment actually would solve the problem that the noble Lord Lord Pannick has outlined. I expect his strong support when I get to that on three, six, nine, on the on the right to protest.

The noble Lord Lord Marks has moved at Committee stage. Many of us, or we were all reassured that this was not necessary. And because the right to peaceful protest is already protected under the Human Rights Act. We were reminded, correctly, that articles ten and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and that public authorities are already bound by those duties. But that reassurance is based on an assumption that those protections will remain intact.

And as the noble and learned Lord Marks pointed out, we cannot be sure of that. We cannot speak for future governments who might cause deterioration to our right to protest, because over recent years, under the government here and on the government there, we have seen a steady erosion of our of of our rights to protest. We've seen an expansion of police powers to restrict those protests. And each time we're told the powers are modest, you know, you'll hardly notice them.

And of course, that's not true, because the effect is cumulative and very damaging and leads to much greater constraint for people who are campaigning and protesting. So the balance is shifting and Parliament continues to widen state power without reaffirming the underlying right at the same time, on amendment 369A, which I've also supported in the name of the Leonard of of the noble Lord Lord Strasburger. There are many reasons, legitimate reasons, why people might want to cover their faces at protest.

And I would suggest that some noble Lords on this side of the chamber might actually benefit from wearing masks, sometimes just to hide their looks
16:20
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
of derision at other noble Lords, speaking coherently and cogently, speaking coherently and cogently, and I think, sensibly so. People might fear losing their job if their political views are known. They might be a backlash from family or their local community. They might be worried about racial They might be worried about racial profiling, particularly given the increased use of facial recognition technology. And they might be technology. And they might be protesting against a foreign regime and be genuinely concerned about reproductive repercussions for loved ones overseas.

So I would say that it is not reasonable to do that now. My own amendment, which is three 72ZA, so clause 139 is actually very, very problematic. It gives the police significant new powers to restrict protests near places of worship. There is no doubt I'm an atheist, but I absolutely would protect the right of people to worship as they as they as they would like to, without fear, freely and at a time of rising anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism.

That duty is paramount for for us here in Parliament, all of our diverse communities must be supported and defended, and every faith group must have the ability to worship freely. Now, clause 139 as drafted risks undermining that balance between rights. If the government are not prepared to remove it, then at the very least it must be clarified and narrowed. My amendments are offered as a compromise and as an attempt to introduce clarity. Where the drafting is currently vague and overly broad.

So my two sets of amendments, which are about in the vicinity of 50m, and the purpose of intimidation, seek to establish some clarity in terms of the very broad definitions in clause 139. Now vicinity 139 seeks to restrict the vicinity of places of religious worship based on the false premise that these powers are required to protect the freedom of religion. Now, the drafting of vicinity is a very vague definition, which could mean ten metres or ten miles. At the very least, the clause must be amended to make it more specific and contained with an eye towards protecting article 11.

Rights of freedom to assembly. The phrase in the vicinity needs to be clarified in terms of a specific distance. Many cities and towns have a large concentration of places of worship. This clause, as it stands, could make it virtually impossible to protest, and the noble Lords have said, including taking protest to Parliament or other places where protests might wish to focus in order to make their point. People in positions of influence in government, for example, we feel the Green Party feels that 50m is a sensible compromise which will provide clarity for the police in terms of the threshold for imposing conditions on protests while protecting the article 11 rights.

Now, I would argue that this particular amendment would help the police. It's so specific, the police could take a tape measure to protest and make sure that protesters were actually at the designated distance. And also, of course, it helps protesters because they can know if they are legally able to protest at that point or not. So I really would urge the noble Lord Minister, the noble Lord Minister, to think about this, to actually clarify what in the vicinity means. It's far too vague to bring in in a piece of legislation, and surely the government must see that on the issue of may intimidate.

Again, it's terribly vague, and I don't understand why anybody would put that in a bill. I think this is bad writing, which is why we have so many z s and z, z and z's and and so on in this at Report stage, all of our diverse communities have to be supported and defended. But clause one, three, nine of the bill as it stands, won't do this because it is too vague. Their already existing powers to address racial and religious hatred and violence under the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on protests that may compel people not to worship, disrupting the activities of an organisation, or intimidate or harass people in the vicinity.

So my amendment does try to make things clearer, and as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always, I'm just trying to help the government to get things right. I just want to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to the noble Lady before she sits down, that her amendments do not achieve the amendments do not achieve the purpose that I understand the government to have with clause 139. Because if you only confer the Because if you only confer the power in relation to a protest that takes place within 50m, then you're takes place within 50m, then you're not going to achieve the purpose, because the purpose is to ensure that people are able to get to and to get away from their synagogue every Saturday.

And if there's a march of hundreds or thousands of people which impede their access, then 50m is not going to work. And as I've already put to Lord Marks, protest is a balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of other people, and the noble Lady is ignoring the rights of others.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll speak to you all later. I think the noble Lord is wrong. I'm think the noble Lord is wrong. I'm afraid you have to have. You cannot have these vague terms. I would have thought the noble and learned Lord would have been appreciative Lord would have been appreciative of the fact that you need clarity in legislation and not these. How can the police know what the can the police know what the vicinity in the vicinity means? How can they possibly make good can they possibly make good judgements? They already make terrible judgements based on some of the law laws that we've passed already.

They actually overstep the mark constantly because they cannot be clear about exactly what it means and what we think it means. So I would argue that actually 50m is a very, very sensible limit.
16:27
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord. >> My Lord. >> My Lords, I've added my name to amendment 379, introducing an amendment 379, introducing an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on authorities that recognise the right to protest. We were told at committee and we've been told again that as, as Baroness Jones has reminded us that that this won't be necessary. But as Baroness Symons is rightly pointed out, I think this whole group of amendments indicates exactly why it is necessary.

This whole section, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames has explained, would actually undermine the right to protest. A constant concern that I have had with this bill is that this is just the latest iteration of adding new powers to a veritable arsenal of laws already on the statute books, undermining curtailing protests. But the problem is, is that we keep making new laws that seemingly are then not enforced or not consistently enforced, leading then to a demand that something more should be done and more and more.

And each time that normalises the chipping away of the right to protest is a democratic norm, not as an unqualified right, but as a norm. I'm just back from Manchester, where last week two masked and armed banded pro ayatollah supporters apologists with a terror backing Iranian regime and Khomeini supporters rode horses on the streets of Manchester at Iranian dissidents in the middle of the day. It was terrifying. It was intimidating. It was violent in many ways.

And the thing that really struck me was that the Greater Manchester Police officers, who were asked why they didn't intervene, just shrugged and said, what can we do now? I'm not advocating that we have a new law specifically banning the riding of horses by pro Islamists through the streets. I'm suggesting that what we need is more decisive police action and use of the laws that we've got when they're required. And I'm just worried about this building up of more and more laws.

It's one of the reasons why I share with other noble Lords real concerns about the vague phrasing of clause 139, the absence of a clear definition of vicinity, as has been explained, that would allow the police to create substantial no protest zones around places of worship, while giving powers to ban demos that may have the effect of intimidating people so as to deter them from religious activities, is a very permissive power now. I mean, I think we all understand it. I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord panic described what he considered clause 139 was, and he talked about on Saturdays at synagogue, people being intimidated.

And I think we all recognise that. But that's not what clause 139 says. And I've been more sympathetic. Oh, sorry. I'd be more sympathetic if it was what the, what the clause said. But in fact it's a very general clause that might have some very unintended consequences. And I have no sympathy with a lot of those pro-Palestinian demos in the vicinity of synagogues, the ongoing intimidation of Jewish citizens. But the police already have extensive powers to arrest people for religiously aggravated hate speech.

As we heard in great detail at report last night last week. Why aren't they using them? There's also the existing powers available to the police to allow them to impose conditions on demos that intimidate people who wish to engage in worship under the Public Order Act. So what is one three, nine, four? And whatever it's for, I'm afraid that it might have. I think, some unintended consequences. I think, that may intimidate worshippers. That idea of may intimidate worshippers because they're told so by religious leaders doesn't would potentially enforce a form of blasphemy law in the vicinity of a place of worship.

This is a question asked by Big Brother Watch, and I think they have a point. I can't see how clause 39 does not prioritise religious sensitivities at the expense of freedom of expression and assembly, and that could happen in two ways. Firstly, how do we ensure that clause 139 doesn't insulate religious institutions from scrutiny or opposition? It could be that, for example, victims of sexual abuse by religious leaders might want to protest outside, I don't know, a Church of England church or a Catholic cathedral.

It could be that former Muslim women who want to protest against, for example, religious practices such as FGM or the enforced wearing of burqas could also be barred. Secondly, just based on the sheer number of places of worship in the country, that in a country that is so religiously diverse and closely populated is, Britain could mean that a significant proportion of the country could be turned into no protest zones. And that's been explained. But a single street could be the site of a specific private business, media organisation, government, health institution, alongside various places of worship.

Wouldn't clause 139, as it's presently drafted, allow worshippers or religious leaders to ask police to pre-emptively restrict protest not aimed at them at all, but covering topics that the religious might consider offensive or intimidating. A woman's rights pro-choice demo, or aimed at an anti-abortion charity's offices, for example, but in the vicinity of a Christian church or a pro-Israel demo at a media organisation complaining about biased TV coverage. But in the vicinity of a mosque, you could see how that could happen.

Many issues, when viewed through the lens of religious sensibilities, could be claimed to be intimidating to worshippers. Clause 39 could seriously censor and silence such views in relation to protest bans, even though it is not what the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Pannick thinks clause 39 is about. No doubt it's not what the government thinks clause 39 is about, but it's what the drafting of clause 39 would allow. Then, just on the ban on face coverings, the JSR has noted that the lack of a clear definition of what could constitute a protest in relation to the new offence of concealing identity, and would indeed, or could it criminalise all forms of identity concealment, and that would unjustifiably interfere with the right to peaceful protest? The noble Lord Lord Strasburger, as Amendment 369 is so modest and proportionate.

But I think it's so important because it tackles what justice has noted as poor drafting that could make criminals of protesters who have legitimate reasons for insisting to remain anonymous. All that, the noble Lord Strasburger suggests, is a reasonable excuse clause, and that would not stop the police dealing with those wearing face coverings to intimidate and avoid arrest. Although, as we've heard, the police already have such powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. But regardless, they don't use them.

These new powers, however, I think, are problematic. And the thing that's most extraordinary and I raise this at committee, maybe the noble Lord, the Minister, can answer it this time, is the government knows that you can't have a blanket ban. So it's made three exemptions. The three exemptions are for religious health or work reasons. But those exemptions seem to me to be completely arbitrary. I mean, I've got no idea why you chose those three exemptions, and they're certainly inadequate as a way of reflecting very important reasons why a protester may not want to protect their may want to protect their privacy in public.

To those who cries, they did it committee that if you've done nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide. Why would you wear a face covering? Those who say that, I would suggest, have never worked in one of the many public sector workplaces where having the wrong opinions can lead you, for example, to be disciplined or treated with social ostracism. Try being a general gender critical feminist academic going on a demo without having your face covered, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of academia when you go back to work.

Or they've never been the victim of stalking or harassment and want to conceal themselves when on a public protest, that could be, by the way, filmed either by the mainstream media or live streamed by phone, or they're people who've never been someone who's had to defy their strict community or religious strictures or prohibitions, or have never been a transnational dissident taking on the Iranian or the Chinese regime. So anonymity is an important enabler of freedom of assembly and association. And while, as we'll see later, there's a problem of police deploying live facial recognition at protests per se, a prohibition on face covering protests could represent a step towards the possibility of widespread biometric surveillance at protests as well.

So I'm afraid there is no presumption that the right to protest is secure in today's political climate, never mind a future government. And if the clauses in this bill aren't or are not reined in, then I think that the right to protest will be even more fragile.
16:36
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I agree with so much of the discussion about this important group, but I remember that this is Report stage. And so whilst I'm particularly, I particularly share the concerns about cumulative disruption because it is Report stage and not committee, I will confine my remarks to one speech in this group, no interventions and just focus on 369 and 369A as briefly and succinctly as I can to do them in reverse order. I so agree with Lord Strasburger and his and his colleagues Baroness Jones, Lord Pannick and Lord Marks about 369A and again these arguments were rehearsed with great precision at Committee stage, and the example was given of a of an Iranian dissident protesting and not being and being concerned about reprisals.

And you could substitute other other countries and their embassies for Iran. That was just the one that came up that day. And in the in the clause, the government acknowledges that there should be some defences to the offensive of wearing a mask on a protest. I have concerns about the offence itself, because it's sort of presupposes that protest is a slightly dodgy thing to begin with. I don't agree with that. But nonetheless, the government conceded there should be defences and included health, religious observance and work as a justification for concealing identity, and fear of reprisals was not included.

And I think Lord Strasburger and colleagues reasonable excuse defence is a very proportionate one, given what the noble Lord Pannick said earlier about about balancing rights. And and so I really urge my colleagues in government to think very seriously about Lord Strasburger amendment, because the defence is currently in the offence of concealing your identity, a protest. Do not include that fear of reprisals. Whether you're a battered woman, whether you're someone who disagrees with your employer or, crucially, whether you're a dissident outside the embassy of your homeland, I really, really urge my noble friends in government to think again about that.

And then just briefly on three, six, nine. I'm still just over two minutes. The enshrining the right to protest as a freestanding, as a freestanding clause, even though it's acknowledged by Lord Lord Marks of Henley on Thames that we have articles ten and 11 of the convention incorporated into the Human Rights Act. I say, I say, in friendship and gently to him, that I do think this kind of duplication may be a mistake that we would come to regret.

He's quite right, of course, as is the government on other matters to do with article eight, that you can be more precise and you should be more precise in your domestic legislation when attempting to safeguard rights and freedoms. But this isn't that much more, more precise. Effectively, this, this, this, this new clause pretty much replicates articles ten and 11 of the convention. But for the removal of of morals. And frankly, I think the morals is a dead letter these days. And so I would just urge him gently not to press that one, because I think as a fellow human rights person, I've been working with the convention, with some members of your Lordships House for over 30 years.

That kind of almost duplication is dangerous in legal terms, so I would urge him not to press that one, just as I urge my colleagues in government to to to support him and and others who've signed up to broadening the defence in six, nine to to the offence of wearing a face covering at a peaceful protest,
16:40
16:41
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I was trying to be short, and this is Report stage, but with the leave, with the leave of the house, I will I will answer again as briefly as I can. I, I know not everyone agrees, not every jurist agrees. But as far as I'm concerned, the margin of appreciation was always intended to be an international concept for an international court. So once you get to Strasbourg, it is quite right that a margin of appreciation applies so that Strasbourg respects the legislation and the and the jurisdiction of domestic legislators and judges.

I don't see it as a domestic legal principle really at all. And so I don't see that it is for even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to be operating a margin of appreciation when it applies the Human Rights Act domestically. So I don't see that as the problem that the noble Lord, noble Lord sees it. And so the way that you put meat on the bones of human rights protections is with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with the detail of the public order statute book.

Hence, I agree with Lord Strasburger about having a proper defence to the face concealment. That is, the detailed meat on the bones, not, frankly, drafting a right to protest that pretty much replicates articles ten and 11. Now, if the concern and I would understand this, is that a future government is going to come in and scrap the Human Rights Act and pull out of the ECHR, why then have colleagues piggybacked onto section six of the Human Rights Act in the way that they drafted the right to protest? So that that I think is is a mistake to if and I don't want to give up on the Human Rights Act and the XR and I will defend it as long as I have breath in my body.

And that, I think, is the approach, because it's a hostage to fortune by Lords to have freestanding vision of particular rights and particular statutes, when what we have, the precious protection that we have is an overarching human rights act that applies to the interpretation of all law. Yes.
16:43
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, the right to protest is >> My Lord, the right to protest is an interesting concept. We all agree on all sides of the House that there is a right to protest. that there is a right to protest. But as with most rights, the right to free speech, the right to assemble in English common law, it's not part of our law, it's part of our common law. We have an absence of fundamental liberties. You are free to do things unless the law otherwise prevents them.

So it would be slightly odd to have the right to protest without any of these other rights simply inserted into our law. How would it work? The the point about public order legislation is that it always has to balance out various interests the right to protest, being one, the right of those affected by those protests, third parties, and of course the the police who have to enforce what is often very difficult and complex legislation to respect those various rights.

And the European Convention didn't invent these rights, but they are reflected in articles ten and article 11 of the convention, both of which are qualified rights. They're not absolute rights. And as Strasbourg has made quite clear, it's perfectly acceptable for individual governments to determine, by reference to the circumstances that obtain in their countries what limits are reasonable to place upon those rights. And Strasbourg has said a number of times they're not likely to interfere with those, so that imposing on top of our public order legislation, this right to protest, would, I respectfully suggest, cause only confusion in our law, make it difficult for courts, make it difficult for the police? As to the noble Lord Lord Marks fear of what might come.

Therefore, I think he's suggesting that it should be in some way hard wired into our law, which would make it more difficult for some government in the future to circumvent the difficulties. Well, with great respect, Parliament can't bind its successors. If a government decided they want to circumscribe the right to protest, they can do that. So I'm afraid I don't think this helps. I think there are sufficient protections. And I think what's interesting and difficult is as a challenge is finding where the limits lie.

But this is not an answer, my Lord.
16:46
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, this is indeed Report stage. And while I have a great deal of sympathy to the several amendments that the noble Lord Lord Marks has spoken to, and I also take the point of the noble Baroness Jones, that this is a very large grouping of a very large number of amendments, but I'm just going to restrict my comments to amendment three, six, 8A3, six, nine a my Lords, this is providing the noble Lady Baroness Fox said this, and I Baroness Chakrabarti also made this point.

It's a much simpler test to apply the test of a reasonable excuse, rather than the rather complicated language used in the statute. That's in clause one, three, three. Subparagraph two. And you have a test, for example, there, whether the wearing of the clothes had a purpose relating to the health of the person or others. That is just asking for a complicated interpretation and the reasonable excuse test is, in my view, a very sound one. And I just want to make one comment relating to the entirety of the Report stage of this bill, and that is that I, and I'm sure other members of this House have extreme concern that we are having to sit every night to beyond 11:00 and to midnight.

I'm glad to see a nod from over the benches there, my Lords, that not only places great strain on the Ministers, I hasten not to ask the noble Lord Hanson how many midnights he's been sitting up in this house for his. He's finding it difficult to count on his fingers, and there are only ten fingers to count on. And I pray he hasn't got enough fingers to count the number of times that he has said so. It imposes a strain.

It also imposes a great strain on all of us, my Lords, who need to participate in this bill and want to participate throughout every debate. It is also another problem, and that is that taking the House sitting so late, some very important amendments are just not considered this. This happened to me on Monday of last week. I had a very important amendment done together with others, and that was not reached. Indeed, it wasn't even spoken upon. This goes to the whole of the of the Report stage.

So I'm blaming nobody. I'm certainly not blaming the Ministers. I'm certainly not blaming the, the, the government Chief Whip all of whom I greatly respect. But there is a problem, and I can't help just recalling this, that on Monday, on Wednesday of last week, when again the house sat to midnight, I think it did, that I was sitting in a committee room in portcullis House and the announcer said the House of Commons was rising at 7:00. My Lords, there's a disproportionate burden being placed on this House, and I protest about it.
16:50
16:51
16:51
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Noble Lady makes a forceful. My understanding is that led to no charges. I certainly wouldn't defend what the police did in those circumstances. And perhaps more relevantly, it has nothing whatever relevantly, it has nothing whatever to do with the contents of the bill, with the amendments, with the proposals that the government is putting forward in in this proposed legislation on amendment three six, nine. It's an important amendment proposed by Lord Marks and others that we should insert into the statute book a right to protest.

And I agree with Baroness Chakrabarti, the noble Lady. I agree with the noble Lord Fawkes that this would be most inappropriate. It cannot be right to introduce a statutory right to protest when we are not introducing, and rightly so, into the statute statute book. Any other provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to religious freedom, and the reason for that is, Baroness Chakrabarti said, is we already have the protection of the Human Rights Act, which is applied by our judges.

And I don't, with respect, accept the criticisms that the noble Lord Lord Marks made. He said. He focussed on the European concept in the European Court of Human Rights, of the margin of discretion. But but that's an international concept. As the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti said, there's something similar here. Discretionary area of judgement. But the European concept is an international concept. It's not applied by the domestic court. Then Lord Marks said, well, we need to put a marker down in case future parliaments interfere with the right to protest.

But nothing we do today is going to prevent a future Parliament, should it wish to do so. From legislating and legislating, we may think inappropriately. That's a matter for them. It's a matter for debate at the time. And Lord Marks third point was that he said, well, the convention allows for a restriction for the protection of morals. And he said, surely that's inappropriate? Well, yes, but I can't think of any case, any case where protest has been limited because of a moral, a moral view imposed by the police or any other authority.

I wouldn't quite go as far as Baroness Chakrabarti I wrote it down. Morals are a dead letter nowadays, perhaps a wider proposition than the noble Lady intended to suggest, but I think amendment 369 would be very most unfortunate. It would cause confusion and it would achieve no sensible purpose, if I may respectfully say so. Amendment 369AI take a different view. I've signed amendment 369A that's Lord Strasburger amendment, and it's amendment that deals with clause one, three, three, which introduces this new offence of concealing your identity at a protest.

And there is no defence that is included there of reasonable excuse. And that is despite the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its fifth report of session 2024 2025, proposed that there should be such a defence and the absence of such a defence is, as Baroness Chakrabarti said, very puzzling because there are defences included in clause one three, three, two relating to the health of a person or religious observance, or a purpose relating to the person's work.

And I gave at Committee stage an example of why a defence of reasonable excuse is required. The example was, and it's a very typical example of a man or a woman who wishes to protest outside the Iranian embassy, or wishes to protest at some other demonstration against the conduct of the Iranian regime. And they may well have a very strong reason for concealing their identity, and that is that they have relatives in Iran. Are we really to say that they are committing a criminal offence? Despite the obvious need for them to conceal their I entity in those circumstances? I heard with great respect to the Minister, no convincing answer to that point at Committee stage, and that's why I've joined with Lord Strasburger in suggesting that a defence of reasonable excuse should be added to this new criminal offence.

And if Lord Strasburger wishes to test the opinion of the House, and I hope he does, if the Minister cannot give any comfort on this, I will certainly support it.
16:57
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to. >> My Lord, I rise to. >> Support mainly the the government. It seems to me that they are taking broadly steps to they are taking broadly steps to stop intimidation of the public, not to stop intimidation of the government, which is what those who support the right to protest seem to be suggesting. And the amendments on the whole seem to try and restrict that. Right. And I do not think it is necessary for the reasons that many people have already said the job of the police is to ensure peaceful protesters are able to protest and that they're not intimidated themselves.

It's not their job, really, to maximise the impact of the protest, which is what the implications of facilitation seem to suggest. Other people's rights have got to be respected. It's very difficult to police in the heat of a protest to try and get that right. It can be a little easier in preparation for the protest if you're able to plan. But often many of these decisions have to be made during the protests. And when you've got thousands of people who are emotional shouting perhaps outside the Israeli embassy, this can be an intimidating effect on everybody.

So I do think that we've got to think seriously about how the police are able to implement these, these amendments. I accept that, obviously, proportionality is a very important part of the ECHR, and I would argue against that. But it's quite hard for the cops to measure this on the ground. In Northern Ireland, it became such an issue that we ended up with a Parades Commission. It took the issues away from the police. I suspect that the way that legislation is going, that might be a wiser thing, to leave someone independent to make these decisions rather than the police.

But while everyone is with the police, I genuinely think it has to be as simple as possible. Not because the police are simple. I speak personally, but because it is not easy to get that balance right. And this is an acute judgement, not one that's measured within a court. I just wanted to speak about two other issues face coverings. If Parliament decides that it wants to have face coverings, then I do think we have to think carefully about the reasonable excuse.

Not because I disagree with Lord Pannick, but because I suspect that everybody will have a reasonable excuse. So you imagine being a police officer, confronting somebody about wearing a mask, trying to determine whether they have a reasonable excuse, together with 4 or 5 other people in the crowd? Almost impossible. Have they got a cold, which is one of the defences within the, you know, within the act already? I think that would be almost unenforceable. So I'm not saying it's wrong to have a reasonable excuse.

I am saying it's difficult to determine it. During a protest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just intervening very briefly. Surely the police go ahead with the arrest, and then the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the arrest, and then the courts decide whether there's reasonable excuse or not. By that time, they're already in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By that time, they're already in a cell having to face the fact that they've been arrested. So I would say best to avoid that prospect and say best to avoid that prospect and best to avoid the dispute. You might end up with a crowd having to make that decision. The police need make that decision. The police need as much smooth transition when in when implementing legislation as possible. So I would be really careful if we carried on with that. The 50 metre test that Baroness Jones has mentioned, I don't think works.

I don't think it works for the reason Lord Pannick mentioned, which is about access and egress from a place of worship, but as importantly, the distance you need to keep for a protester is either throwing distance, shouting distance to make their point and probably abuse somebody. The process or amplified sound that can be quite a distance. Now, given the geography of many locations that protests might happen, I understand the point to make it a discrete area, but 50m can never work, and if you try and determine the distance, I think it's going to be quite difficult.

So vicinity I think, can work because I think it's a reasonable test and then leave that for the courts to decide and leave the cops the opportunity to make the decision based on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances they face. But I'm afraid 50m is nowhere near reasonable. For the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord sits down. Could he. Answer the point made by Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Answer the point made by Lord Pannick about Iranians protesting outside the Iranian embassy? Scared, of course, for their relatives in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iran? Well, I particularly avoided having that conversation because I think it's a good point, Mike. If think it's a good point, Mike. If you remember, I introduced my points by saying, if a decision is made to impose a ban on masks, then I'm just making the point that a reasonable excuse may be difficult to enforce. I'm not expressing the opinion about Lord Pannick very good point about whether it will capture Iranians who might be in fear of their life from the Iranian republic.

I think it's a reasonable point, and I'm choosing not to express the opinion on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the noble Lord. Sit down. Could I just pick him up on one point? Because it's very interesting. You said that the law interesting. You said that the law should be simple, because that's what I've heard from currently serving senior officers. But can he serving senior officers. But can he see that as we accumulate more and more bits of law, it actually more bits of law, it actually doesn't make things simpler. It makes things more complicated for the police. And I have been on protests where the police have very definitely been quite confused about the legislation.

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really, he ought to be arguing with the government to make things much, much simpler. I'll probably finish here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll probably finish here because it's Report stage. But just to say that I think all I was saying, first of all, I think 50 saying, first of all, I think 50 minutes is too short. I think you could I think vicinity works, but I think clarity I agree with I'm not against the clarity, but I think you've got to leave the police with some flexibility given the circumstances they face. And I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion of vicinity. We can make it work, but 50m will never work in my view.
17:03
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Mr. Ben. >> Spence. >> My Lords, we have started the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have started the day day four report on this bill with a wide ranging and interesting with a wide ranging and interesting debate on the general landscape of public order law. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and Lord Strasburger, and the Lord Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fox of Buckley have argued that there are too many statutory limitations on protests in this country. I do not agree, and indeed I suspect I will find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, the Minister, in speaking to those amendments.

First, however, I will speak to my amendments three, 773 and 377 de amendment 377C would extend the notification period for public processions from 6 to 28 days. Currently, section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires any person organising a protest to notify the police of their proposal to hold that protest with six days notice, and the purpose of this six day notice period is to ensure that the police can plan their resource requirements effectively. They need to examine the route, number of attendees and timing, gather intelligence on the groups and people involved, and assess the likelihood of violence and disorder.

And if the procession is likely to be large or the cause highly contentious, or if those involved have a history of causing disorder, then there may very well need to make contingencies and possibly bring in more officers. The short period of six days causes significant problems for the police, the public and the organisers of the protest, and it may take the police a substantial amount of time to gather all the available evidence and set conditions, so the organisers can often only be notified of those conditions the day before the protest is due to take place.

This does not give them an adequate time to ensure that they can comply with those conditions, nor does it allow for the public and businesses adequate time to adapt. Policy Exchange's polling demonstrated that the minimum level of notice that respondents to their survey believe protest organisers should have to give to the police is 28 days, and in their survey, 51% said organisers should have to give at least three weeks notice and 45% said the period should be at least four weeks.

The 28 day period is also, incidentally, the same notice period as exists in Northern Ireland. And whilst I appreciate the different historical and political contexts in Northern Ireland, it does not seem unreasonable to extend that to England and Wales, especially given the substantial time and effort that police must pour into planning for large scale protests. Amendment 37, seven D concerns the criteria in which the police may prohibit a protest, and currently section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the police to prohibit protests if there is a likelihood that the protest will result in serious public disorder.

However, that is only that is the only criterion included in that section, meaning there is no ability for the police to prohibit a protest if there is a risk of serious disruption to the life of a community. Nor does it allow the police to take into account their own resources and their ability to maintain public safety when making their assessment. So my amendment extends the criteria for the prohibition of protest to include where the chief officer of police has a reasonable belief that the protest could result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or that it would place undue demands on the police.

So, given the government's commitment to reform of public order law, I would think they should be able to accept these two amendments. And before the noble Lord, the Minister says they need to wait for the noble Lord. Lord MacDonald of River Glen's review into public order and hate speech to report. I would gently remind him that the government were perfectly happy to pre-empt that review and legislate to extend the legislation on aggravated or aggravated aggravators based on characteristics last week, and if they were happy to do so for that provision, I do not see why they cannot accept mine.

But if the noble Lord, the Minister, finds himself unable to do so, I am minded to press them to a division when called. I will also briefly comment on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 36 nine tabled by the noble noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and others, would create a new statutory right to protest. And while the intention behind this is understandable, it is difficult to see what legal gap it is intended to fill. As the noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes, has already explained, the right to protest is already protected through the common law and currently through article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act. But it is important to recognise that we do not derive our rights in Britain from international treaties or even from domestic statute. The right to protest was protected before Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, and before we joined the XR. It is a right derived from ancient English liberty and our common law inheritance, placing it into the Crime and Policing Bill in 2026 will not change a thing.

I dare say, if we were to leave the and repeal the Human Rights Act, we would still have our ancient freedom to protest intact. What's more, creating a new declaratory declaratory clause risks adding greater complexity without adding meaningful protection. Indeed, by restating rights that are already well established, we may inadvertently create new areas of legal uncertainty rather than clarity for the police, local authorities and the courts. And for those reasons, I cannot support that amendment. A similar concern arises with amendment 30 69A, which would introduce a reasonable excuse defence relating to concealing identity and protest.

Clause 133, subsection two already contains these defences. Those include where a person is wearing the face coverings for health reasons, religious observance, or for a purpose relating to their work, and that is perfectly reasonable and pragmatic. List of exceptions. Amendment 30 72A and 37 two AA seek to narrow the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on protests in the vicinity of places of worship, and in doing so they replaced the current test, where a protest may intimidate with the requirement to demonstrate a specific purpose to intimidate that is significant, that is, a significantly higher threshold, and the difficulty is obvious.

In practice, intimidation often arises from the circumstances and impact of a protest rather than from an explicitly stated intention, and requiring the police to prove purpose before acting risks trying there, tying their hands precisely where communities may feel most vulnerable. On amendment 37 three. As I stated at committee, we on these benches are supportive of the introduction of police powers to take into consideration cumulative disruption when placing conditions on protests and assemblies. I do not, therefore agree with removing clause 140.

The previous government did try to introduce this in 2023, after all, and it was the Liberal Democrats and Labour who voted that down in this House at the time. So it is good to see the Labour Party finally has come round to the Conservatives way of thinking.
17:10
None Portrait Government Spokes Lord Katz (Labour)
-

My Lords, I am grateful to the >> My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords Lord Marks, Lord Strasburger and Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lady Jones for Gower and the noble Lady Jones for for this further opportunity to debate the right to protest and public order measures in this Bill, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this important debate. The government fully recognises the importance of peaceful protest in a democratic society. However, amendment 369, put forward by the noble Lord Lord Marks, replaces in statute a right that was already clearly protected in democratic law.

And that's just not just me saying that, as we've heard for a formidable legal troika of the noble Lords Lord Faulks and Lord Pannick and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, public authorities are indeed, as they said, bound by the Human Rights Act, uphold articles ten and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These rights are qualified and may only be limited where restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Common law Lords also provide strong recognition of peaceful protest.

Protest. Introducing an additional statutory provision risks creating overlap and uncertainty, particularly for operational policing, without offering any meaningful new protections. In his contribution of Lord Lord Marks and indeed the noble Lady, Baroness Jones talked about the risks of further, shall we say, more extreme government coming and this paving the way for further restrictions on the right to protest. Well, I can only agree with comments made by a number of local Lords, I would say particularly noble Lord Pannick and I think also liberal Lord Doyle Lord Faulks.

It is here that I should hope the occasion never arises, but that is democracy, and I think that any incoming government that has that kind of mandate would not find it hard to not to overturn, not just provisions that the government is making in this, in this bill, but also the the amendment that the noble Lord Lord Marks proposes should the should it make its way onto the statute book. So I'm not sure that argument really washes. The government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the rights to protest.

That is one reason why I've asked the noble Lord Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to review the current legislative framework. One of the matters being explored as part of the review is, and I quote from its terms of terms of reference, whether the current legislation strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe. Lord MacDonald is expected to report later in the spring. And I can assure all noble Lords that we will consider very carefully all his recommendations, including any proposing a strength of the right to protest.

Moving to amendment 369A in the name of Lord Lord Strasburger, which would provide a reasonable excuse defence for concealing a person's identity at a protest in a designated area, and shift the burden of proof away from individuals within that designated designated area onto police. Instead of requiring a person to justify why they had a valid reason for wearing an item to conceal their identity as set out in the specified offences, it would place the responsibility on the police during the protests to to assess whether the explanation provided was reasonable or not.

And as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that isn't that isn't necessarily always an easy thing to do. Clause 133 currently provides three statutory defences for concealing identity at a protest within a designated area. These are relating to health of the person or others, religious observance, or for a purpose relating to that person's work. Defence carries a reverse burden of proof meaning for the individual to prove they conceal their identity for one of these identity. For one of these reasons, I consider this is a proportionate and carefully balanced offence.

My Lords, it's important to highlight that any decision to designate an area and arrest a person concealing their identity must take into account section six of the Human Rights Act 1998, meaning all decisions must be necessary and proportionate in relation to the right of peaceful protest. And it's important to bear in mind, my Lords, that locality will only be designated when it's thought that a protest activity is likely to involve or has involved criminality, and so it's expedient to do so in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences.

We we, we we heard discussion about kind of fear of reprisals when it comes to transnational repression. And we would say that introducing a statutory particular my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, we say introducing a statutory defence relating to transnational repression would introduce operational complexities for the police, as is, of course, the role of the courts, not law enforcement, to assess reasonable doubt and evaluate any defences raised by the defendant in the context of transnational repression cases, which are often internationally complex, such a defence would place an unnecessary burden on police to disprove claims relating to potential threats to an individual's safety from a particular state, for example.

I should stress as well that clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. So is he saying to the protester at the Iranian embassy that he or she has Iranian embassy that he or she has only two choices not to protest or to protest, not wearing a face mask, to protest, not wearing a face mask, and thereby run the risk that their relatives in Iran may may be killed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or tortured. No, what I would what I would say in that particular example is that I would revert to the what I mentioned about the the locality only being designated. Should criminality be be suspected or like liked by the police to, to to maybe likely to occur or to have occurred on previous occasions. And I would and I'd put it to the, to the to to the noble Lord the Lord Pannick that a a largely peaceful protest outside an embassy and at a an appropriate distance wouldn't fall into that that category of of protest, as I was going to say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear operational guidance from the NPCC. Very quickly, it might well be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly, it might well be that that particular protester. If the noble Lords Minister. If the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord could explain, it's just on a demonstration in general, if you are if you are a an Iranian dissident or a Chinese dissident, you might be on a civil rights demonstration, you might be on a demonstration, you might be on a demonstration arguing for the right to protest. And that would equally be the target of the ire of your authoritarian, anti-protest anti civil liberty regime. So the the if the noble Lord could explain how this can't possibly chill their right to go on a right to protest.

And it's not just transnational, but other examples were given. Some people won't go on protest because they'll be frightened of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences. No, I would say that the the, you know, in terms of this having a you know, in terms of this having a chilling effect, the new offence will only cover people in the locality who are wearing or otherwise using an item conceals otherwise using an item conceals their their identity. And it's it is, as I said, it's for the the is, as I said, it's for the the police will only use this power if they can say that there is going to be criminality on a particular protest, on a particular on, on, on, protest, on a particular on, on, on, on a, on a, on, on a particular march.

And I would put that is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is not a power that they're going to be using lightly. Testing the local law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Testing the local law. But the difficulty is that there is absolutely no reason why the is absolutely no reason why the criminality has to be connected with the attitudes of those Iranians who are frightened. The Iranians who are frightened. The criminality has to be the criminality simply has to be connected with the protest as a whole. It may be entirely separate from the views or attitudes or desires of the Iranians, who, in Lord Pannick example, are likely to be deterred from attending a protest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't think I disagree with the noble Lord. And what I'm saying is that the police designation of a locality where this where this this offence would apply would only be in the case where they thought that criminality where they thought that criminality and offences would be would be caused. It's not relating it to the fact that there are, in this case, fact that there are, in this case, Iranian Iranians, Iranians protesting. I would say that I, I'd just reflect the the comments from the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe.

He said the reason offences that we've listed in the in in the clause are I'm trying to paraphrase his words because I didn't write them down. But there are, there are, there are common sense and they are easily,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

easily explicable. And I'm very grateful to him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm very grateful to him that the defence that he is offering that this only applies if there is criminality, really there is criminality, really doesn't explain why clause 133 does doesn't explain why clause 133 does recognise defences for health, religious observance or a person's work. And if you recognise if the work. And if you recognise if the government recognises those defences, even though it's in the context of criminality, surely it should also cover the type of example that I've given.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think it's, you know, Lord can never test my patience too Lord can never test my patience too far, but I, I, I would, I, I'd simply say it comes back to the fact that there are some there are fact that there are some there are some, there are three very clear and easy to understand, easy to interpret in terms of operate for the police's operational use defences that one can that one could use in this situation. I'd say fear of dissident reprisal is does not necessarily fit into that category so easily.

But I will, notwithstanding his inability to test my patience, I'm going to make some progress as we have more to more to discuss. Turning to amendments 3272872372B and 372C in the name of the noble Lord Lord Marks would mean that clause 139 would apply only where a protest is directed at or connected with the place of worship before conditions can be imposed. Additionally, the noble Baroness Shah Lord Jones has amendments 37203728372, AB 372372 BBB and 372D, which would raise the threshold for police intervention by requiring proof that a protest has the explicit purpose of intimidating individuals assessing accessing a place of worship, and and that it would in fact intimidate them.

They also proposed limiting police powers to process occurring within 15m of the outer outer perimeter of a place of worship. My Lords. As seen with recent demonstrations, protests can have an unintended impact on the life of a community and those seeking to exercise their freedom of religion without intimidation or fear. I want to be clear that clause 139 seeks to address a clear legislative gap arising from such protests. Police currently have powers to intervene where there is a serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation.

However, we've already heard consistently, consistently from both the police and religious communities that these thresholds are too high to protect worshippers who feel too intimidated to attend their place of worship. Even though the protesters do not intend to have such an effect, requiring officers to demonstrate both the purpose and the effect of intimidation would restrict their ability to act at an earlier stage, reducing operational flexibility. Clause 139 My Lords, responds directly to that problem. It does not ban protests. It simply gives the police the ability to impose proportionate conditions where procession, assembly or one person protest may create an intimidating atmosphere in the vicinity of a place of worship.

This protects the freedom to worship without undermining the fundamental right to protest. Both rights are essential and this clause is carefully designed to balance them. As the noble Lady, Baroness Jones herself said, the duty to protect minority communities and their right, their right to go about their life, whether it's work or their freedom of worship or any other respect, is indeed paramount and this clause seeks to do so. The noble Lady's proposal to introduce a rigid 50 metre boundary would further constrain the police.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the noble Lady calls the current proposal in the bill vague, but I'd put to her the rigidity of 50m goes too far. If we just think to. If we just think to Saint Margaret's Church and its and its proximity to both this House and indeed Parliament Square, that is more than 50m, 50m having this rule in place, notwithstanding any particular provisions around protests in Parliament Square, as just as a practical example would make that make that sort of protest impossible.

And I would say using one of the examples promoted by the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley any protest outside church, churches or cathedrals that she mentioned would also be presumably limited in that stage. Activity occurring outside that distance may still create an environment that discourages worshippers from entering, yet the police would be unable to impose conditions unless the protest moves move closer. This was undermined the clauses purpose of enabling proportionate intervention. Where there is a risk of an intimidating atmosphere near a place of worship, and as the noble Lord Lord Pannick said, that includes the comings and goings going in and out, in to and from a place of worship, as well as actually being within the building.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley, who I, I'm afraid I do not see in his place for meeting myself and members of the Jewish communal organisations, including the Board of Deputies, the CST and the Jewish Leadership Council. About this clause. As I reiterated at that in that meeting, I want to make clear that the government will write to police forces and local authorities, following Royal Assent, to remind them of their existing powers available to protect community centres and schools, as well as places of worship.

This will this will ensure that all agencies are fully aware of the tools they already have to respond to intimidatory behaviour in these settings. Turning to amendment 373 the Lord Marks. This seeks to remove the cumulative disruption clause from the bill. I've been clear that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right in this country. However, it should be balanced with the need for individuals and communities to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the last few years, we've seen the impact of recent protests on the life of communities.

And of course, we saw the tragic anti-Semitic terror incident that took place at Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester on on the 2nd of October, which led to the unfortunate murders of Adrian Dalby and Melvin Kravitz. This the and we also saw protests subsequently continuing, which highlighted the concerns around the protection of specific communities, including Jewish communities and others affected by the cumulative impact of protests. There are other examples where communities face serious disruption from protests taking place in the same area week after week, and on this score, I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Pannick on the streets of London.

Over the past couple of years, we have seen regular practically weekly protests and the noble Lord Lord Marks is right. It is indeed the cumulative impact that has that, that has the effect of, of, of, of forcing home a particular message that those protesters want to make. But that shouldn't come at the price of allowing other citizens to enjoy their regular rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my noble Lord, the friend, for for giving Lord, the friend, for for giving way. But I do want to remind him. way. But I do want to remind him. At Committee stage, a number of us raised the statement that was issued by a whole range of civil issued by a whole range of civil society organisations, who often live in the communities in which live in the communities in which they are also carrying out protests. You'll recall, in particular, that the TUC supported that civil society statement.

Can my noble friend take the opportunity today to reassure those organisations? And I speak as somebody, one of perhaps few people in this House who have had responsibility for organising mass national demonstrations in central London. Can you reassure those organisations that this is not, as they fear, effectively a quota on national demonstrations in London? And similarly, can you give some guidance to the police about how they pick and choose between those different organisations, if there is indeed to be a quota?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my noble friend for that and of course, for all the work she's done in in terms of organising those, those national protests, at least 1 or 2 of which I'm sure I have, I have attended. I'm sure I have, I have attended. It's absolutely not a quota. It's simply a it's simply to say that if you are regularly marching in areas you are regularly marching in areas where you have to live, you have to undertake the activity side by side undertake the activity side by side with other communities, that that that repeated activity shouldn't impede on their ability to say, come and go to a synagogue.

And it can't be right that synagogues, I know this is the case, have had to alter their regular service times on a Saturday morning simply to allow for protests. There must be a way that police can accommodate both the needs of the protesters and the needs of those worshippers. And I do not see that. But I want to be very clear. This is absolutely not about imposing a quota on, on, on, on protests, as it doesn't allow police to ban a particular protest, but places a duty on senior officers to consider community disruption when deciding whether the disruption to the life of the community threshold.

In sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met. Finally turning to amendments 377 C and 377 D from the noble Lord Lord Davis. Amendment 370 7C6 introduce the notice period required for planning processions from six days to 28 days. And as I explained at Committee stage, I believe six days provides the police with adequate time to work with organisers, planning protests to ensure any conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. His amendment 377 seeks to amend section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 to enable a chief Officer of police to consider serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, and the demands on police resources.

When determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions. Section 13 of the 1986 act rightly sets out a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. Widening the scope of this power, including to take account of police resources, would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest under articles ten and 11 and the legislation becoming incompatible with the XR. He made a comment and comparing this with the the the measures we discussed last week, a report out of aggravated offences.

If I heard him correctly, I would say that that latter was very clearly a manifesto commitment and indeed was announced before Lord MacDonald's review. I hope I've been able to reassure, reassure, noble Lords have spoken in this group. They've raised some very legitimate issues about whether existing public order legislation and the measures in part nine of the bill strike the right balance between protecting the right to protest and protecting communities and preventing disorder. As I've said, there is an ongoing review examining justice issue, and I put it to noble Lords that we should wait for the outcome of that review.

And accordingly, this is not the occasion to press any of the amendments to a vote today. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord Lord Marks to withdraw his amendment.
17:30
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'll be very brief in explaining why I don't propose to withdraw my amendment. First, our amendment introduces would introduce a introduces would introduce a dynamic right with a duty on local authorities and public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. Secondly, of course, the margin of appreciation is indeed an international concept, but this government is planning to legislate on the application of article eight, and there may be right to do so. But we need to have a proper concern about future legislation within the context of the margin of appreciation.

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we can entrench legislation, and Lord Foulkes is absolutely right to say that Parliament cannot bind its successors, but we can, by legislation, make it unattractive to reverse a public duty to support the right to protest. Finally, nothing I have said undermines the balancing of rights between the rights to protest and the rights and freedoms of others. But the right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. If the Conservatives are not going to support us on this, then so be it.

That's very disappointing, but I wish to tend to test the opinion of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for my part. Said amendment 369 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said amendment 369 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will content. Not content. The votes will be decided. Sorry,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The votes will be decided. Sorry, I beg your pardon. The question will be decided by a division. I'll advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is
17:32
17:42
17:43
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page