Health and Care Bill - Clause 20 - Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction

Swayne raised concerns about the potential for thought crime, citing an example of a police officer telling someone that praying silently is illegal. He emphasised the importance of protecting religious freedoms.

Paisley Jnr supported Lewer's amendment, arguing that continuing with this measure would make law enforcement a laughing stock and undermine their ability to address serious crimes.

Stafford argued that existing legislation already provides local councils with the power to implement buffer zones around abortion clinics, making additional amendments unnecessary and potentially redundant.

Hughes highlighted a specific incident where Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested despite the clinic not being open, suggesting that the proposed amendment might lead to overzealous enforcement.

Lewis questioned whether the amendment would affect the ability of law enforcement to prevent harassment at abortion clinics, expressing concern about the potential for noisy protests and their impact.

Hayes argued that previous Prime Ministers and Health Secretaries had concluded there was no need for further action regarding buffer zones, emphasising the importance of freedom to think, speak, and pray.

Trickett questioned whether he could address other amendments on the order paper, expressing support for addressing broader issues related to freedom of speech and assembly.

Davis commended Lewer's speech and emphasised that the Bill overreacts to recent demonstrations, proposing a return to discretion in law enforcement. He also raised concerns about suspicionless stop and search, citing historical precedents of abuse by authorities.

Mr McDonald argues against no-suspicion stop and search powers as they cause considerable harm, including racial disparities. He also criticises SDPOs for being overly broad in their application and lacking proper oversight.

Mr Walker supports Lords amendments 6 and 20, arguing against suspicion-less stop and search powers and serious disruption prevention orders. He cites a briefing from the Whips Office in support of his position.

Hughes interjected asking Rupa Huq if she believes a person engaged in silent prayer should be arrested. This suggests he opposes the amendment as it could criminalize non-violent protest.

Paisley requested to give way, likely questioning the relevance of Huq's argument on abortion rights versus women's right to safe access. This implies he may oppose the amendment as it does not address his perceived main issue.

Lockhart requested an opportunity for Huq to respond, suggesting she might critique the practical implications of the amendment in terms of protests versus women's freedom.

Jardine supported Huq's argument, highlighting a contradiction between protesters demanding buffer zones and denying women the right to free choice. This shows support for the amendment as it defends against harassment.

Bardell expressed frustration at men's perspective on this issue, suggesting they do not understand or respect women's autonomy in healthcare decisions. This shows support for the amendment to protect against harassment.

Jenkin interjected, noting both Houses have already voted heavily in favour of buffer zones but criticised the amendment for trying to set back that decision. This indicates opposition to Lords Amendment 5.

Supports the amendment, arguing that it protects the right to pray peacefully without fear of arrest or prosecution. He cites examples of individuals being arrested for praying outside abortion clinics as a violation of their freedom of thought and expression.

Intervenes to clarify that the amendment targets actions that do not impede others, distinguishing it from disruptive activities. He supports the amendment as a necessary protection for peaceful expression.

Questions whether the amendment would create conflicts and disruptions, suggesting it might be misinterpreted to permit intrusive actions intended to influence decisions. Argues for a balance between freedom of expression and rights to access legal services.

Emphasises the need to consider the impact on women seeking abortion services, who might be traumatised by intrusive protests. Supports differentiation between freedom of prayer and the negative effects on individuals accessing legal services.

Ms Cherry supports the Joint Committee’s report recommending removal of suspicionless stop and search powers. She argues that these measures are disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to peaceful protest, emphasising adherence to the European convention on human rights requirements for lawfulness, necessity and proportionality.

Mr Philp clarifies that clause 11 states an officer must have a reasonable belief before activating the section, although this does not preclude suspicionless stop and search after the initial belief is established. He argues against the notion of wholly unconstrained power.

Mr McDonald counters Mr Philp's argument, emphasising that a locality-wide suspicionless stop and search is still problematic despite an initial reasonable belief. He asserts it is nonsensical to subject everyone in a locality to such searches.

Mr Simmonds supports the legislation, expressing understanding for constituents affected by disruptive protests. He highlights the need to balance free speech with protection from unreasonable disruption, supporting greater focus on defining serious disruption and welcoming amendments that protect journalists while maintaining law enforcement powers.

Mr. Paisley is opposed to the proposed harassment clause, arguing that it would criminalize silent prayer and free thought. He cites a Home Office review from 2018 which found protesters praying quietly were often misunderstood or wrongly accused of harassment. Mr. Paisley believes the legislation disproportionately restricts freedom of thought and expression and diverts police resources away from more pressing crimes.

Mr. Dalton intervened to challenge Mr. Paisley's interpretation, questioning why prayer must be ostentatious and public rather than private. He referenced Matthew 6:5-6 as evidence that silent, personal prayer should not be a source of intimidation or harassment.

Mr. Philp intervened to clarify that it is a free vote and there is no Government position on the buffer zone amendment, suggesting support for maintaining flexibility in voting.

Mr. Jenkin requested to intervene but did not provide specific arguments in the given text.

My amendment aims to protect people who are praying privately, even if it appears offensive to others. I am concerned about the principle of criminalising private thought or conversations in these safe access zones.

[INTERVENTION] My concern is that silent prayer in this context has a clear motive of intimidating women seeking abortion services on their most difficult day.

[INTERVENTION] Amendment (a) does not restrict harassment; it provides a defence for those engaging in harassing behaviour by claiming they are praying or seeking consensual communication.

[INTERVENTION] The amendment is not about private prayer but silent prayer in someone's face, which is unwelcome and should be addressed.

[INTERVENTION] In Ealing, since 2018, only three breaches of the safe access zone have occurred, with no convictions. Medical opinion widely supports this measure.

Warns about confusion and ambiguity in the Bill, impacting police decision-making. Argues that existing laws are sufficient and opposes broadening 'serious disruption' definition as it treats protesters like terrorists.

Supports buffer zones around clinics for antisocial behaviour, but argues against Lords amendment 5 which bans silent prayer and consensual conversations. Argues that such amendments hinder people's ability to help others on their worst days.

She argues that the concept of freedom presented in the debate is myopic and fails to recognise women's right to privacy. She states that nothing in Lords Amendment 5 criminalises prayer but emphasises the need for a balance between free speech and personal rights, particularly in sensitive contexts such as outside abortion clinics.

He intervenes to challenge Stella Creasy's position by questioning whether she supports the arrest of women who choose silence as a form of protest, suggesting that such an approach is irrational.

He discusses the implications of the proposed amendment, arguing that it protects consensual communication and silent prayer without allowing harassment. He uses the example of a woman arrested for simply standing silently to illustrate his point about the need for clarity in criminal law.

Ms Long-Bailey argues that the term 'serious disruption' is dangerously vague and could criminalise minor hindrances, such as crossing to another side of the road due to a protest. She supports Lords amendments 6 and 20 which aim to remove problematic provisions from the Bill.

Mr Millar emphasises the importance of evidence-based lawmaking and proportionality, supporting his colleague's amendments. He highlights concerns about the arrest for silent prayer in a buffer zone around an abortion clinic and argues that laws should clarify freedom to think and practise silent prayer.

She argues that the Government's Bill escalates unnecessary legislation, citing a lack of need for additional powers as highlighted by Her Majesty’s inspectorate. She criticises the impact assessment, which suggests minimal practical effect from the new offences and orders proposed. Jones raises concerns about definitions of serious disruption being overly vague, leading to potential overreach in police intervention. She opposes suspicionless stop and search due to its disproportionate use against black people, potentially undermining public trust in policing. While welcoming protections for journalists, she strongly opposes SDPOs as they treat peaceful protestors like serious criminals. Regarding buffer zones around abortion clinics, Jones supports them but warns that the proposed amendment undermines their effectiveness.

Intervened to question whether the provision is extraordinary given frequent disruption around Parliament Square during protests, suggesting it aligns with typical democratic society tolerance for such disruptions.

Asked Jones if she accepts that people are being arrested for silent prayer under current buffer zones legislation and whether amendment (a) is necessary to protect consensual communication rights, implying the need for clearer definitions of harassment.

Stated that the buffer zone legislation aims to create an exclusion zone around abortion clinics but warned that amendment (a) undermines this goal by allowing individuals to claim actions as 'silent prayer', thereby evading accusations of harassment.

Critiqued the proposed legislation, arguing it would ban silent praying within 150 metres of abortion clinics and questioned if this is appropriate in a democratic society.

Agreed with Jones, asserting that the amendment would require more police resources due to unclear definitions of harassment and reiterated support for buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Philp argues that defining serious disruption as 'more than minor' inconvenience is essential for balancing protest rights with citizens' daily activities. He cites police and legal support, including HMIC's approval of suspicionless stop and search powers under reasonable conditions.

Asked for clarification on whether permitted protests would continue to block roads with police permission, implying support for the principle that authorised protests should not be restricted.

Pressed Philp on his stance regarding silent prayer in relation to the proposed amendment, seeking guidance without taking a firm position but showing interest in supporting free prayer.

Raised concerns about the potential for widespread suspicionless stop and searches based on minor threats, arguing such practices could be disproportionate and overly invasive.

Asked Philp to confirm that the amended legislation complies with ECHR, emphasising the importance of not criminalizing prayer while ensuring appropriate boundaries.