Public Order Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we too support all the amendments today. I open by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for all her work on this matter; I know that she has worked tirelessly between both Houses and both sides of this House. I am glad that we have reached this point and, to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: plenty of Christians support the amendments and there are a number I know who would take exception to people describing them as somehow not as good Christians as those who wish to protest by praying within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. It is perfectly clear that you can pray wherever you like, but outside 150 metres of an abortion clinic.

I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who talked about the strength of the votes at earlier stages of the Bill. He highlighted stop and search and SDPOs, and the strength of support from across the Cross Benches, including from many very senior former judges. I hope that when the Minister wraps up, at this stage or the next, he says something or gives us some hint about how far the Government will go in recognising the concerns that this House has expressed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, subsequent to Report and ahead of today’s Third Reading, the Government have brought a number of clarificatory technical amendments.

First, during the debate on Report on 7 February, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked for clarification, as he has referred to, that a second or subsequent serious disruption prevention order made in respect of the same person could not be founded on trigger events that had already been taken into account for the purposes of a previous order. I confirmed that that was indeed the Government’s intention. In this spirit, the Government have today brought an amendment clarifying that position within the legislation. I hope noble Lords are satisfied with that legal clarity and I thank the noble Lord for his remarks.

Finally, on Report, your Lordships voted to remove from the Bill Clause 11 on suspicionless stop and search, and Clause 20 on serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction. As a result, the Government have brought tidying amendments that are consequential to those amendments. I will not speculate further on what may happen later.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

6: Leave out Clause 12
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

7: Leave out Clause 13
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

8: Leave out Clause 14
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

9: Clause 20, page 21, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) P’s conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) has not been taken into account when making any previous serious disruption prevention order in respect of P.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies an uncertainty in the Bill regarding the conditions for making a serious disruption prevention order. It clarifies that a previous conviction or breach may not be taken into account if that conviction or breach has already been taken into account in respect of the making of any earlier serious disruption prevention order.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

10: Clause 21, page 23, line 7, leave out from “20(5)” to end of line 8
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

12: Clause 27, page 27, line 12, leave out paragraph (d)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

15: Clause 28, page 29, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

17: Clause 33, page 31, line 35, leave out “sections 8 and 13” and insert “section 8”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom that leaves out Clause 13.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been a wide-ranging debate, with much scrutiny across three days of Committee and two days of Report.

I must express the Government’s disappointment at the removal of some very important measures, the aim of which was to support the police in better responding to the sort of disruption which has been impacting the public going about their daily lives. Those amendments will now be considered in the other place and we will no doubt be debating them again soon.

Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in steering the Bill through the House. I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies of Gower. I also express my thanks to noble Lords on the Government Benches for giving this Bill the scrutiny that the public expect. I thank the Front Bench opposite for its engagement on the Bill, accepting that there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I expect nothing less, of course, of these noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have been passionate advocates for their causes throughout this process.