← Back to House of Commons Debates
Health and Care Bill - Clause 20 - Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction
07 March 2023
Lead MP
Andrew Lewer
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Crime & Law Enforcement
Other Contributors: 51
At a Glance
Andrew Lewer raised concerns about health and care bill - clause 20 - serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Andrew Lewer proposed an amendment to Lords amendment 5, arguing that the measure does not apply to people engaged in prayer. He emphasised that arresting individuals for silently praying is inappropriate and undermines public trust in law enforcement. The amendment seeks to ensure that freedom of speech and religion are protected from overzealous police action.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
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.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
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.
Worcester
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.
Eddie Hughes
Con
Stoke-on-Trent North
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Jon Trickett
Lab
Normanton and Hemsworth
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.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
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.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Cumnock and Doon Valley
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.
Charles Walker
Con
Broxbourne
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.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
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.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
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.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
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.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
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.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South
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.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
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.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
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.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
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.
Ashley Dalton
Lab
West Lancashire
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.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
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.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Mr. Jenkin requested to intervene but did not provide specific arguments in the given text.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
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.
Brecon and Radnorshire
[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.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
[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.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
[INTERVENTION] The amendment is not about private prayer but silent prayer in someone's face, which is unwelcome and should be addressed.
Rupa Huq
Lab
Ealing Central and Acton
[INTERVENTION] In Ealing, since 2018, only three breaches of the safe access zone have occurred, with no convictions. Medical opinion widely supports this measure.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
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.
Croydon South
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.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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.
Salford
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.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
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.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
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.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
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.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
Raised concerns about the potential for widespread suspicionless stop and searches based on minor threats, arguing such practices could be disproportionate and overly invasive.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Asked Philp to confirm that the amended legislation complies with ECHR, emphasising the importance of not criminalizing prayer while ensuring appropriate boundaries.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.