Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — Clause 55 — Imposing Conditions on Public Processions and One-Person Protests — 25 Apr 2022 at 18:15

The majority of MPs voted to empower the police to impose conditions on seriously disruptively noisy processions and one person protests, to remove causing "serious unease" as an example of serious disruption caused by a noisy procession, to continue to consider preventing people from being able to continue with an organisation's activities for a prolonged time as serious disruption, and to require reports on the operation of these laws.

MPs were considering the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.^[1][2]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• insists on its disagreement with Lords in their Amendment 73, insists on its Amendment 73C to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment, insists on its Amendment 74A to Lords Amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87, insists on its Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment but proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and additional Amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87.

Lords amendment 73^[4], which was rejected by the majority of MPs, in this vote stated:

• Page 47, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3)

The explanatory notes to Lords amendment 73^[5] state:

• Lords Amendment 73* would omit subsections (2) and (3) from Clause 55. These subsections broaden the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on those organising or taking part in a procession to include where the senior police officer reasonably believes that the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a significant relevant impact on persons in the vicinity or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession.

Amendment 73C which was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote stated^[6]:

• 73C Page 47, line 22, leave out “serious unease”

This amendment again impacted the provisions relating to the conditions under which the police would be permitted to impose conditions on seriously disruptively noisy processions, removing causing "serious unease" as a possible example of what might amount to seriously disruption.

Amendment 74^[5] set out circumstances in which the noise generated by persons taking part in a public assembly, such as a protest, may be considered to be seriously disruptive as including: "significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product" to consumers or "prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service", including "money, food, water, energy or fuel", communications systems, places of worship, transport facilities, educational institutions and health services.

Amendment 73A which was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote stated made a structural/technical change to amendment 74, removing a line stating: "(2) After subsection (2) insert—", these words were already in the Bill so didn't need to be repeated in the amendment.^[6]

Lords amendment 74B, an amendment to amendment 74, which was rejected by the majority of MPs, in this vote stated^[6]:

• Leave out lines 20 to 26

This was an amendment to amendment 74, which had it not been rejected would have removed the text stating:

• (2ZC) For the purposes of subsection (1)(aa), the cases in which the noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession include, in particular, where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on in that vicinity the activities or any one of them.””

Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G which were rejected in this vote stated:

• 74C As an amendment to Lords Amendment 75, leave out “any of subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC)” and insert “subsection (2ZA) or (2ZB)”

This would have fixed the language in light of the removal of subclause 2ZC.

• 74D As an amendment to Lords Amendment 76, leave out “any” and insert “either”

This would have fixed the language in light of the removal of subclause 2ZC as Lords amendment 76 stated:

• Page 47, line 39, after “particular” insert “, amend any of those subsections for the purposes of”
• 74E As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 36 and 37

This would have removed a power for ministers to define, in regulations: "serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession"

• 74F As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, line 40, leave out “an expression mentioned in subsection 12(a) or (b)” and insert “that expression”

This appears likely to be a language change intended to reflect that that if amendment 74G had been accepted there would only be one phrase to be defined in regulations, namely: "serious disruption to the life of the community".

• 74G As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 44 and 45

This would have removed the phrase: "serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession, or" from a list of terms ministers could define in regulations.

• Amendment 87 which was rejected in this vote stated:^[5]
• Leave out Clause 61

Clause 61 (3) of the Bill^[2] began:

• Imposing conditions on one-person protests
• After section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 insert—
• “14ZA Imposing conditions on one-person protests
• (1) Subsection (2) applies if the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any one-person protest in England and Wales is being carried on or is intended to be carried on, reasonably believes—
• (a) that the noise generated by the person carrying on the protest may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest, or
• (b) that—
• (i) the noise generated by the person carrying on the protest may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the protest, and
• (ii) that impact may be significant.
• (2) The senior police officer may give directions imposing on the person organising or carrying on the protest such conditions as appear to the officer necessary to prevent such disruption or impact.
• ..

Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H were approved by the majority of MPs in this vote and stated^[4]:

• 87A Page 55, line 21, at end insert—
• “(5A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the cases in which the noise generated by a person taking part in a one-person protest may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest include, in particular, where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on in that vicinity the activities or any one of them.”

This gave an example of when the noise generated by a person taking part in a one-person protest would be considered sufficiently disruptive to enable the police to place conditions on the protest.

Amendments 87B-F were consequential amendments following amendment 87A enabling ministers to amend the newly introduced section via regulations and to make consequential amendments.

Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote, it stated^[8]:

• Page 48, line 8, at end insert—
• “(5) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force—
• (a) prepare and publish a report on the operation of the amendments to section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 made by this section, and
• (b) lay the report before Parliament.”

The amendment requires a report on the provisions of the Bill empowering the police to impose conditions on seriously disruptively noisy public processions.

Amendment (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 87 was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote, it stated^[8]:

• Page 56, line 32, at end insert—
• “(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force—
• (a) prepare and publish a report on the operation of section 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986 made by this section, and (b) lay the report before Parliament.

The amendment requires a report on the provisions of the Bill empowering the police to impose conditions on seriously disruptively noisy one person protests.

--

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 6 July 2021, Parliament.uk
• [3] Explanatory notes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 6 July 2021, Parliament.uk
• [4] Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 23 March 2022, Parliament.uk
• [5] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
• [6] Commons Insistence, Disagreement, Amendment in Lieu and Amendments to the Words So Restored to the Bill, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 25 April 2022, Parliament.uk
• [7] Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
• [8] Amendment sheet for consideration of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 22 April 2022, Parliament.uk

Debate in Parliament |