Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Public Order Bill - Clause 11 (Powers to stop and search without suspicion)

24 April 2023 · 7 other contributors

Opened by Chris Philp Con Croydon South

Policing & ResourcesCrime & Law Enforcement

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Chris Philp raised concerns about public order bill - clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Clause 11 of the Public Order Bill allows police to stop and search without suspicion if an officer reasonably believes certain protest-related offences will occur.
  • Current safeguards include GOWISELY training for officers under section 3.8 of PACE code A.
  • Reporting on stop-and-search incidents is already conducted through annual statistical bulletins from the Home Office.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Chris Philp Con Croydon South

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6H and 6J. The Public Order Bill is about giving the police the tools they need to tackle disruptive protest tactics that have caused significant disruption. Clause 11 allows for stop-and-search powers without suspicion if a police officer reasonably believes certain protest-related offences will happen in the near future, ensuring it isn't used arbitrarily. Current legal frameworks such as section 3.8 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) code A provide necessary safeguards, including GOWISELY training for officers. The requirement to establish charters on use of powers would create unnecessary burdens. Reporting is already conducted through annual statistical bulletins from the Home Office, detailing each stop-and-search incident. Communication on the use of these powers is crucial for building trust and confidence between police forces and communities, which will be reinforced by amending PACE code A to ensure operational practical communication.

Other contributors (7)
  • Chris Philp Con Croydon South

    He argues that Lords amendments are unnecessary due to existing legal frameworks and safeguards, such as PACE code A. He highlights that amending PACE code A is a better approach to ensure consistency across stop-and-search powers without creating additional burdens for police forces.

  • Sarah Jones Lab Croydon West

    Argues against the Government's motion to disagree with Lords amendments, highlighting that the amendments seek to improve the manner in which suspicionless stop and search is conducted. Emphasises the need for safeguards in clause 11 and supports the inclusion of Casey’s recommendations into legislation.

  • Chris Philp Con Croydon South

    Asks why the Opposition objects to implementing some elements of the Lords amendments in PACE code A, suggesting it is a better place for such regulations. Points out that Baroness Casey did not specify these changes should be made via primary legislation.

  • David Davis Con Goole and Pocklington

    Supports the Lords amendment, stating it is in line with the Casey report recommendations. Argues that clause 11 should be on the face of the Bill to ensure respectful use of stop and search powers.

  • Stuart McDonald

    Supports Lords amendments, highlighting the significant impact suspicionless stop and search can have on black and minority ethnic communities. Criticises clause 11 for its inappropriate expansion of stop and search powers.

  • Wendy Chamberlain Lib Dem North East Fife

    Expressed concerns about eroding trust in policing, highlighting that stop and search without suspicion may not effectively prevent crime. Cited the Casey report to argue against a sudden increase in section 60 searches. Emphasised the importance of gaining intelligence through community trust for effective law enforcement.

  • Chris Philp Con Croydon South

    Stated that these powers are necessary to prevent disruption and planned criminal activities. Noted that key points of the amendments are already covered or will be covered by PACE code A, emphasising consistency with existing practice. Argued for ease of updating secondary legislation over primary legislation.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy