Public Order Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1A in lieu.

1A: Page 36, line 15, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of serious disruption
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the cases in which individuals or an organisation may suffer serious disruption include, in particular, where the individuals or the organisation—
(a) are by way of physical obstruction prevented, or hindered to more than a minor degree, from carrying out—
(i) their day-to-day activities (including in particular the making of a journey),
(ii) construction or maintenance works, or
(iii) activities related to such works,
(b) are prevented from making or receiving, or suffer a delay that is more than minor to the making or receiving of, a delivery of a time-sensitive product, or
(c) are prevented from accessing, or suffer a disruption that is more than minor to the accessing of, any essential goods or any essential service.
(2) In this section—
(a) “time-sensitive product” means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them;
(b) a reference to accessing essential goods or essential services includes in particular a reference to accessing—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a transport facility,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.”

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Motion C.

Amendment 1 provides a definition of “serious disruption” which is the trigger for a number of offences and powers contained in the Bill. As I explained when this was first considered on Report, the Government do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. First, it does not read compatibly with the measures in the Bill—a point made by several of your Lordships during that debate. Secondly, it does not set an appropriate threshold for what constitutes serious disruption, which is why, on Report, the Government supported the definition proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The Government have brought an amendment in lieu to more closely align the definition with that proposed by the noble and learned Lord and to address these two issues. The new proposed threshold is rooted in case law from both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It now has the support of the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled Motion A1, which replaces the “more than minor” threshold in this amendment with “significant”. I will paraphrase the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who, when this was debated on Report, expertly argued why “more than minor” was an appropriate threshold. There is no question that minor disruption is not only acceptable but is a constituent part of the right to protest. However, when disruption exceeds this, the police should intervene. The use of “more than” implements this concept in law, which is why the Government continue to support the formulation of the noble and learned Lord. We encourage your Lordships to support Amendment 1A.

Motion C relates to journalists. This group concerns Amendment 17, which seeks to establish a specific safeguard for journalists and bystanders during protests. It is in response to the unlawful arrest of the LBC journalist, Charlotte Lynch, and others by Hertfordshire Constabulary in October 2022. The Government are clear that the role of members of the press must be respected. They should be able to do their job freely and without restriction. However, we remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. The police may exercise their powers of arrest and powers to maintain public order and public safety only in limited circumstances specified in law. Therefore, there is no need whatever for carve-outs of circumstances where these powers cannot be used.

However, we recognise the strength of support for this amendment. Sometimes there is a need to send a signal as to the values and principles we stand for; this is one of those times. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment in lieu in the other place. It accepts the principle of the amendment while also minimising the risk of unintended consequences. We make it explicit that the police may still use their powers on those reporting and observing protests when it is necessary and lawful to do so. The police must still be able to exercise their powers on journalists and observers who break the law or who put public safety at risk.

Amendment 17A was supported by the other place, including by the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that it will now also be accepted by your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I start, I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House, the doorkeepers, the attendants, the security and the police officers, who have shown such kindness towards me following the sudden, unexpected and so far unexplained death of my husband. I am very grateful.

As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have explained, the definition of “serious disruption” underpins the entire Public Order Bill. It is an element of many of the new offences and the trigger for the use of new draconian police powers, which we will debate in the next two groups. The police asked for clarity, as there was no definition of “serious disruption” in the Bill that originally came to us from the other place, and we joined forces with His Majesty’s Official Opposition to provide a reasoned and reasonable definition of “serious disruption” that gave clear guidance to the police—Lords Amendment 1—which was agreed by this House. The Commons disagreed with our amendment and substituted Amendment 1A as an amendment in lieu.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, about the problem with ambiguity around the word “significant”, the fact is that the original amendment this House passed had examples clearly explaining to the police what we meant, so that ambiguity was not there in the original amendment passed by this House.

Instead of defining “serious disruption” as causing

“significant harm to persons, organisations or the life of the community”,

which would include, for example, preventing an ambulance taking a patient to a hospital, the Government have substituted, as we have heard,

“more than a minor degree”

for “significant harm”. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and to address the concerns of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will repeat what I said on Report: on a spectrum of seriousness, “minor” is at one end and “serious” is at the other. I say that as a former police officer speaking about how the police might interpret the legislation. For example, a minor injury is a reddening of the skin, and a serious injury is a broken limb or inflicting a fatal injury. My interpretation, as a former police officer, of what is being said in the Bill is that disrupting to

“more than a minor degree”

cannot reasonably be said to be “serious disruption”; it is far too low a threshold. While I understand that the noble and learned Lord wanted to establish a threshold—the exact point at which the law would be broken—our argument is that that point is far too low. We therefore support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and we will support him if he decides to divide the House on his Motion A1.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in saying that I am grateful to the Minister for Amendment 17A, mentioned in Motion C, which we support. It is right to protect observers of protests from being prevented from carrying out their work by the police.

Finally, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox of Buckley, for their kind words about my public service, but I reassure the House that this is not my valedictory speech.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, again, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate and for the scrutiny they continue to bring to bear on these important measures.

Before I get on to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the Government’s intentions for Section 73 of the PCSC Act. For the benefit of the House, Sections 73 and 74 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act contain delegated powers which allow the Secretary of State to amend the definitions of

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

and

“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession”

for the purpose of Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 36A.

6A: Because it is appropriate for the police to be able to exercise the stop and search powers contained in the clause removed by the Lords Amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

36A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 6 to which the Commons disagree.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ Amendment 6 and the related consequential amendments remove the power to stop and search without suspicion from the Bill. While I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords when considering these amendments during Report, the Government cannot accept the removal of the suspicionless stop and search powers from the Bill. The other place has also disagreed to these amendments for their reasons 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 36A. I therefore respectfully encourage the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to reflect on Motion B1, which seeks to overturn this wholly and which I do not think appropriate.

Suspicionless stop and search is a vital tool used to crack down on crime and protect communities, and we see it as entirely appropriate that these measures be extended to tackle highly disruptive protest offences. These are much needed proactive powers. Large protests are fast-paced environments where it is difficult for the police to reach the level of suspicion required for a suspicion-led search. The police should not have so sit by idly where there is a risk that someone will commit a criminal offence, and this is why suspicionless stop and search powers are necessary.

This view is shared HMICFRS, which found that suspicionless search powers would act as a deterrent and help prevent disruption and keep people safe. I want to be clear that the power to conduct a suspicionless search does not mean that anyone at a protest will be at risk of being searched without suspicion. The vast majority of protests in this country are peaceful and non-disruptive. These powers will be used only in the exceptional circumstances where it is likely that people at a protest will go on to commit criminal offences that cause serious disruption to others.

I also want to assure your Lordships, as I have sought to do throughout the passage of this Bill, that the safeguards on existing stop and search powers will apply to these powers, both for suspicion-led and suspicionless stop and search, and that includes body-worn video and PACE codes of practice. The Home Office also publishes extensive data on the use of stop and search to drive transparency. We expect the police to operate in a legitimate, fair and transparent manner, which includes decisions surrounding their use of this power.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled Motion B2. I want to remind the House that the power to conduct a suspicionless stop and search in a public order context will only be used in limited cases where a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes that protest-related offences will occur and therefore authorises its use. In such cases, suspicionless stop and searches are limited to a specified locality for a specified period, but no longer than 24 hours. This can be extended for a further 24 hours to a maximum of 48 hours by an officer of or above the rank of superintendent, but it cannot be in place for more than 48 hours.

The reason why we have set out the thresholds and time limitations in this way is that we wanted to keep the legislation as consistent as possible for officers who will be using suspicionless stop and search powers. The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would set a higher authorisation threshold for suspicionless searches than if officers are searching for a weapon, and limit the initial window that officers would have to use these powers, which has the potential to confuse officers with the well-established Section 60 legislation that we have discussed previously.

Suspicionless stop and search can be authorised only if specific protest-related offences are likely to be committed. These are the offences in this Bill and the offences of obstructing the highway and public nuisance. As the offence of public nuisance is committed so frequently by those who use disruption as a protest tactic, it is nonsensical to remove it from the list of relevant offences. Doing so would completely undermine this power.

The Government recognise that communication is a fundamental element of building trust and confidence between the force and the community it serves. As good practice, most forces already communicate their Section 60 authorisations, and I know that communities appreciate knowing detail on the geographical area, time limits and the background of the issue. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the final proposed new subsection in the proposed amendment, which would establish in statute a requirement for the force to communicate when the powers are used, I do not think we want to introduce an inconsistency between the Section 60 legislation framework, which does not carry a communication requirement, and the proposed powers in the Bill. I therefore ask that your Lordships’ House does not insist on these amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I must inform the House that if Motion B1 is agreed to, I cannot call Motion B2 by reason of pre-emption.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have partaken in another fruitful debate. It has long been the Government’s view that suspicionless stop and search powers are necessary and much-needed proactive powers for tackling highly disruptive protest offences. This view remains unchanged.

I will endeavour to answer some of the points that were raised. First, on why, in its report into the policing of protests HMICFRS concluded:

“On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe”.


It is worth reiterating that last point “making the public safe”.

On the disproportionate use of the powers with people of colour, nobody should be stopped and searched because of their race. Extensive safeguards, such as statutory codes of practice and body-worn video exist to ensure that this does not happen. The Home Office publishes extensive data on police use of stop and search in the interests of transparency and will expand this publication to the use of the new powers provided for in this Bill.

On the subject that was just under discussion about the appropriate level of officer who may authorise a suspicionless stop and search, I take the points that noble Lords have made about Section 47A, but this replicates existing powers within Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as I said in my opening remarks. Wherever possible, to ensure consistency, officers of inspector or higher may give an authorisation for up to 24 hours. Any extension must be made by an officer of superintendent rank or higher and no authorisation can last for more than 48 hours.

With regard to the geographical extent of a no-reasonable-suspicion stop and search order, it is for police forces to determine how and, indeed, whether to communicate the geographical extent of a search order under Section 60. This will also be the case for the new suspicionless powers in the Bill. Forces are no longer required to communicate that a Section 60 order is in place, but many continue to do so, where they judge it operationally feasible. Obviously, that in itself helps to deter criminals and enhance community trust and confidence. It is common for forces to use their social media channels or websites to communicate the extent of a Section 60 order.

I do not think there is a great deal more I can usefully say or add. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, not to press their amendments.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his comprehensive and convincing explanation of his Motion B2, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, who, from his personal experience and from the experience of the people he works with and has talked to and whose experiences he has shared, has said that we should listen very carefully. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who feels that Clause 11 should not be part of the Bill but, regrettably, as I said before, probably accepts, as do I, that constitutionally we cannot take it out at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 17A in lieu.

17A: Page 19, line 22, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Exercise of police powers in relation to journalists etc
(1) A constable may not exercise a police power for the sole purpose of preventing a person from observing or reporting on a protest.
(2) A constable may not exercise a police power for the sole purpose of preventing a person from observing or reporting on the exercise of a police power in relation to—
(a) a protest-related offence,
(b) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or
(c) activities related to a protest.
(3) This section does not affect the exercise by a constable of a police power for any purpose for which it may be exercised apart from this section.
(4) In this section—
“injunction” means an injunction granted by the High Court, the county court or a youth court;
“police power” means a power which is conferred on a constable by or by virtue of an enactment or by a rule of law;
“protest-related breach”, in relation to an injunction, means a breach which is directly related to a protest;
“protest-related offence” means an offence which is directly related to a protest.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 33A and 33B in lieu.

33A: Clause 20, page 24, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (iii) to (v)

33B: Clause 20, page 24, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) P’s conduct in relation to each occasion mentioned in paragraph (a) has not been taken into account when making any previous serious disruption prevention order in respect of P.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ Amendment 20 removes Clause 20—“Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction”—entirely from the Bill. The Government listened carefully to the concerns expressed by this House regarding the conditions that could be considered when applying an order to an individual. That is why the Government have accepted the Lords amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Making this change means that an order could be given only on the basis that an individual has been convicted of a protest-related offence or been found in contempt of court for a protest-related breach of an injunction on at least two occasions. I believe that this is the issue with which your Lordships were most concerned, so we listened and we acted.

We still believe it is important that the police have the opportunity to apply for an order at a later point following conviction. Without this measure, it would not be possible to place an order on individuals who have already been found guilty of multiple protest-related offences until they reoffend and are convicted of yet another offence. Removing the ability to impose an SDPO otherwise than on conviction undermines this proactive element. That is why we disagreed with Lords Amendment 20 and tabled amendments in lieu, which reintroduce this clause but tailor the list of conditions, so that upon application an order can be made only where individuals have been convicted of protest-related offences or breaches of injunctions, thereby aligning this with the Lords amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.

There has been some confusion about the nature of this clause, quite possibly due to its title, which should more accurately be defined as “Serious disruption prevention order made on application”. I assure noble Lords that we will look to make that change following the passage of the Bill.

For the avoidance of doubt, updated Clause 20 will not allow an order to be applied to an individual without a conviction. It will simply allow for an order to be made by a magistrates’ court on application by a relevant chief officer of police at a later point following two or more convictions.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has tabled Motion D1, which, with respect, I cannot support. To be subject to a SDPO, a person must be convicted of two protest-related offences or found in contempt of court for breaching two protest-related injunctions. Being found guilty by a court for these acts inherently means that their conduct was beyond a genuine expression of their right to protest. Additionally, it creates an inconsistency between this provision and SDPOs made on conviction, which have already been accepted by Parliament. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord does not move his Motion.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches accept that the amendments have been made in the Commons but are still concerned that they do not go far enough. Taking the matter back to the beginning, the bar set on which people can be convicted or the orders can eventually be issued is based on the balance of probabilities. That matter was the source of a great deal of discussion in this House. A bar has been set which is basically non-evidential, because no evidence has to be proven of what has happened. Any amendments which would raise that bar just above a zero threshold are to be commended.

Having made the orders less draconian and brought them in line with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the SPDOs are to be imposed on protesters, taking away their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, on the balance of probabilities. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services reported, in its review of public order policing, that it doubted that these orders are workable, even with a breach of the order occurring. A person attending a protest peacefully, in breach of an SPDO, is unlikely to be treated by the court in the same manner as a potential terrorist. Courts would look at the effect of an order and measure that against the breach of human rights legislation, and, in the end, the effect of an order breaching a person’s human rights could well override the effect of the order.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, pointed out in Committee, these orders would remove people’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only if a court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that depriving people of their human rights on the weakest of evidential tests was sufficient. Therefore, there is an expectation that the courts would use a breach of human rights legislation to override the effect of the SPDO.

In seeking to raise the bar from zero—the bar is sitting on the floor, as no evidence is required—these amendments at least provide an evidential activity. They require an officer to have observed the evidence behind the requirement. The requirement in the amendments before us may not be sufficient, but it certainly lifts the bar, in relation to evidence, off the floor. In fact, we need to help police officers. Police officers may be faced with situations without evidence, such as listening to somebody’s hearsay about a protester. Alternatively, they may have it in their mind that possible action will take place if they assume that a protester, who is standing peacefully and undertaking a peaceful activity, could well jump across the road, lie on the ground and stop the traffic. In those cases, they would not have any evidence that the person was about to conduct themselves in a dangerous manner, so it would be effective to introduce provisions for that. This set of amendments could provide for those matters, but, as I have said, in a very limited way.

As the noble Lord will not press his amendment to a vote, it seems to us that the Government have to consider how the courts will deal with these matters when they are placed before them, when we have human rights legislation guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom to join together with others and freedom of expression. When all those rights are being harmed, what will the courts say and are the Government sufficiently ambitious that they think that their evidence based on these rules will give the human rights opinion any credence whatever?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their thoughtful and considered contributions to this debate. As I have already detailed, the Government listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns regarding the serious disruption prevention order measures. Orders will now be applied only where individuals have been convicted of protest-related offences or breaches of protest-related injunctions on at least two occasions.

The noble Lord, Lord German, argued that serious disruption prevention orders contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not. The right to protest is fundamental and despite sensationalist claims such as that, that will not change. These orders will ensure that individuals who deliberately cause serious disruption more than twice will face justice. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR set out that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. However, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.

I hope your Lordships will be satisfied that the Government have responded with a very significant offer that addresses the key concerns expressed throughout the passage of this Bill. The Bill will better balance the rights of protesters with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives free from disruption and address the ever-evolving protest tactics we have seen employed by a selfish minority of protesters. Blocking motorways and slow walking in roads delays our life-saving emergency services, stops people getting to work and drains police resources. The British people are rightly fed up with it and are demanding action from their lawmakers.

It is time for this Bill to become law. I thank the noble Lord for saying that he will withdraw his Motion.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.