Public Order Bill

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Amendment 101 seeks to explicitly exclude certain items from being regarded as prohibited. It is important to note that, where an individual has a reasonable excuse for carrying an item, such as glue, it will not be regarded as prohibited. However, some of the items included in this amendment, such as glue, are those which have often directly been used for acts such as locking on. Therefore, the amendment may have the effect of undermining the effectiveness of the measure. With that, I respectfully ask noble Lords to allow Clause 10 to stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I invite the Minister to comment on the remarks that I and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, made at Second Reading, which my noble friend Lord Coaker referenced.

If a police officer attempts to stop and search a woman who clearly knows that she is not carrying anything unreasonable, given what the police themselves said about how single women walking alone at night might respond to this, there is every chance that a suspicionless stop and search could result in the woman—young or old—obstructing a police officer in the course of his or her duty. I did not hear the Minister respond to that. It is a very significant concern. It would be a concern anyway but it is an aggravated one, given what the Metropolitan Police and other authorities have said in the light of what we know only too well happened previously.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but asking an officer for proof of identity is not in and of itself an obstructive thing to do. That is very clear.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

If I might just press the point: of course, if the young woman has the presence of mind to simply ask for proof of identity, that may very well not be obstruction, but she may be frightened by this and seek to move away or to respond in some other way, but not to assault the police officer. I just see that there is a danger in this situation, and I am not hearing anything that I could tell women who are asking me about what we are doing in the Public Order Bill so that they do not need to have any concern about suspicionless stop and search. We heard before about it being perfectly reasonable to respond in such a way that you can categorically assure yourself that a person is a police officer. Frankly, I have never seen a police identity badge, so I do not know what they look like. The previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner talked about flagging down buses if you are not happy about what is going on. I want to press the Minister on this point, because although I absolutely accept that asking to see a badge is not necessarily chargeable with obstruction, other things could befall.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

To add to that, women were also told to consider refusing to get into a police car, and even if you did see the badge, Wayne Couzens was carrying a perfectly legitimate police badge, whether or not you recognise it is beside the point. While I am on my feet, will the Minister answer my point about the prison population already being incredibly high?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

This is of very great significance; not just to me, not just to women, but to everyone who is trying to understand the Government’s intention with this legislation and in what position people will find themselves. Does the Minister not agree that, if it is the Government’s intention that only uniformed police officers may exercise these powers—frankly, I do not think that they should do so either—then that should be made explicit in the Bill, as there is clearly the possibility of ambiguity?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that Clause 11(6) says:

“This section confers on any constable in uniform power … to stop any person and search them or anything carried by them for a prohibited object.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, Clause 17 is very dubious. It is bad enough when private companies use civil injunctions, which have become quasi-criminal private tools against protesters. I was up at Preston New Road and I saw this in action by fracking companies. The fact is, of course, that the protesters who had injunctions brought against them were proved to have been entirely on the right side of history, yet they were targeted by the fracking companies, very unfairly, because their trying to halt the companies’ damage to the environment was perfectly appropriate. We have seen injunctions used against tree protectors as well. Of course, breach of an injunction is contempt of court, with the risk of fines and imprisonment. It is actually quite onerous, and it is bad enough when a private company chooses to do it, but it is pretty concerning when a Secretary of State decides to do it.

I think we have all agreed that, if not completely overcome by corruption, this Government do at least have filaments of corruption winding their way through the whole body politic. Therefore, we have to be very careful that we do not introduce other ways for corruption to happen within government. Clearly, the Government should review the situation and propose reforms, because this really is not how injunctions are supposed to be.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, not being a lawyer, I would never have dreamed of writing amendments of the technical nature of Amendments 114 and 115. None the less, having heard the speech of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and having discussed it with her before she made it, it is evident to me that these are vital amendments should Clause 17 stand part—which, of course, it absolutely should not. If there is any sense, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has powerfully persuaded me there is, that Clause 17 is constitutionally dubious, that really should give the Government pause for thought. I genuinely believe that anyone—the person on the Clapham omnibus—who read this and found that the Government can substitute a prosecution for a private company at the public expense would, frankly, be rather appalled and find it very odd legislation.

Clause 17 (5) states:

“the Secretary of State must consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to any persons who may also bring civil proceedings in relation to those activities.”

That just does not seem appropriate. Surely, the purpose of the law is to make sure that the onus for things lies in the proper place, and the onus for proceedings such as those conceivably envisaged here cannot possibly lie with the Government and the public. Amendments 114 and 115, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, at least tighten up the possibilities here. The Secretary of State would be required to publish a range of things, as she has already said, including

“the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings”.

It seems to me that we are allowing the Secretary of State to do something which, if I had just read this myself and come to a view on it, I would have considered to be ultra vires, if that is the correct term, because this is not something we should be spending public money on. Amendments 114 and 115 would go some way towards tightening up Clause 17, but as other noble Lords have said, those of us who have read this in detail and given it some consideration genuinely believe that it should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is a probing amendment which would require the Secretary of State to review the use of injunctions for protest-related activity. This is to probe how injunctions are used, what their effects are, how they interact with police powers and responsibilities, and the problems facing their use, such as securing them within a reasonable timescale. The purpose of the amendment is for the Secretary of State to set out a review of injunctions in the widest sense.

We also heard from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about her Amendments 114 and 115, which would create safeguards against corruption and abuse. They would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings and assessments of why any proceedings have been brought by the Secretary of State at public expense rather than by private companies. Such publication would occur each time an exercise of the power is considered and annually on an aggregate basis so that we can look at the overall effect.

My noble friend Lady Blower, who like me is not a lawyer, expressed incredulity about the situation, which I share. As a layman, it seems to me that the Clause 17 provisions give the Home Secretary powers to bring civil proceedings against protesters at public expense. This is a surprising set of circumstances, and my noble friend’s amendments are trying to get the Government to justify that on a continual basis, which seems entirely reasonable.

Amendments 110, 111 and 112 are also in this group. This clause provides that the Secretary of State can use new injunction powers where they reasonably believe the conditions under the clause are met. These amendments would delete “reasonably believes” and strengthen it to

“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.

Amendment 113 would provide that the Secretary of State may bring civil proceedings under this clause only if it is not reasonable or practicable for a party directly impacted by the activity to do so.

I move on to Amendment 114. The clause provides that, before bringing proceedings under it, the Secretary of State must consult “such persons (if any)” that they consider appropriate. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons if they do not consult, the outcome of any consultation, representations made to the Secretary of State and a reason why the Secretary of State should bring the proceedings at public expense, rather than another party.

As the Minister has heard, there is substantial scepticism about many aspects of Clause 17. There are a number of amendments here seeking to probe the Government’s intentions, and we may well return to this at a later stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.