Defending civil liberties
The Green Party peers had major concerns about yet more draconian powers for the police being added with a ban on protests near places of worship and enabling the police to ban repeat protests. Jenny also promoted a new ‘right to protest’ clause. The front bench of the other ‘opposition’ parties refused to support a vote on these amendments so they fell without a fight.
Labour have failed to repeal any of the draconian laws brought in by the previous Conservative government.
Our amendments
Right to Protest (A369 Report Stage)- This amendment would have introduced an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on public authorities while recognising that the right to protest may need to be limited to protect other legitimate public interests.
Concealing identity (A369 Report Stage)- This amendment would have provided a defence of reasonable excuse to the offence of concealing identity at protests, thereby putting the burden of proof on police officers to justify why they believe that wearing a face covering at a protest made the suspect arrestable.
Changing ‘in the vicinity’ of places of workship to ‘within 50 metres’ (372ZA, 372AB, 372BB Report Stage) – This amendment aimed to clarify the police’s new power to restrict the right to protest in the “vicinity” of places of religious worship based on the false premise that these powers are required to protect freedom of religion. It specifies that this means within 50 metres from the outer perimeter of the buildings concerned.
Changing ‘may intimidate’ to ‘where the intention is to intimidate’ (372AA, 372BA, 372D Report Stage) – This amendment sought to make this far clearer and less open to a subjective interpretation, i.e. that there is an intention to intimidate, and where people are deliberately prevented from entering the place of worship.
A statutory code of practice agreed prior to Facial Recognition being used to police protests (A374 Report Stage) – This amendment would have ensured that before it is used in connection with protests or assemblies, there should first be a statutory code of practice that has been approved by Parliament.
Police not using DVLA searches for Facial Recognition (A380) – This amendment would have simply made the government’s expressed position explicit in the Bill by ensuring that DVLA data cannot be used for biometric searches using facial recognition technology.
Amendments Jenny put her name to:
Before Clause 133, insert the following new Clause— “The right to protest. Before section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 (advance notice of public processions), insert— “10A The right to protest
(1) Everyone has the right to engage in peaceful protest, both alone and with others.
(2) Public authorities have a duty to—
(a) respect the right to protest,
(b) protect the right to protest, and
(c) facilitate the right to protest.
(3) A public authority may only interfere with the right to protest, including by placing restrictions upon its exercise, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so to—
(a) protect national security or public safety,
(b) prevent disorder or crime, or
(c) protect public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.
(4) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the same meaning
as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).””
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment would introduce an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on public authorities while recognising that the right to protest may need to be limited to protect other legitimate public interests.
Clause 133, page 176, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they had a reasonable excuse for wearing or otherwise using the item at the material time.”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment would provide a defence of reasonable excuse to the offence of concealing identity at protests, thereby putting the burden of proof on police officers to justify why they believe that wearing a face covering at a protest made the suspect arrestable.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 9, leave out “in the vicinity” and insert “within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 10, leave out “may intimidate” and insert “has the purpose of intimidating individuals accessing that place of worship to carry out religious activities and would intimidate”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 20, leave out “in the vicinity” and insert “within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 21, leave out “may intimidate” and insert “has the purpose of intimidating individuals accessing that place of worship to carry out religious activities and would intimidate”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 30, leave out “in the vicinity” and insert “within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 139, page 180, line 31, leave out “may intimidate” and insert “has the purpose of intimidating individuals accessing that place of worship to carry out religious activities and would intimidate”
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment seeks to clarify the wording of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with greater clarity on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests.
BARONESS DOOCEY
LORD CLEMENT-JONES
BARONESS FOX OF BUCKLEY
BARONESS JONES OF MOULSECOOMB
Clause 141, page 182, line 42, at end insert— “(4) After section 14, insert— “14ZZA Imposition of conditions: live facial recognition. Prior to imposing conditions under either section 12 (imposing conditions on public processions) or 14 (imposing conditions on public assemblies), the senior officer of the police force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new statutory code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales has previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.””
Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment ensures that police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14, unless a new, specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been formally approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is intended to safeguard public privacy and civil liberties by requiring democratic oversight before this surveillance technology is deployed in such contexts.
Jenny’s verbal contributions to this bill catalogued below
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb 