UK Plan to Clamp Down on ‘Disruptive Protests’ Suffers Defeats in House of Lords

The House of Lords chamber sits in session at the Houses of Parliament in London on Oct. 31, 2017. Dan Kitwood/AFP/Getty Images

The House of Lords has inflicted a number of defeats on the UK government over its plans to clamp down on “disruptive protests.”

The UK government on Jan. 16 announced plans to give police more powers to tackle “disruptive protests” such as those organised by climate activists, allowing officers to intervene before protests become highly disruptive.

But in a setback for the proposed changes to the Public Order Bill, members of the House of Lords on Monday backed by 243 votes to 221, majority 22, a higher threshold before police can intervene in protests with a stricter definition of “serious disruption.”

Later, a government-backed move to prevent protesting “an issue of current debate” being used as a reasonable defence for offences such as locking-on, tunnelling, and blocking roads, was narrowly rejected by 224 votes to 221, majority three.

The defeats set the stage for a tussle between the unelected chamber and the House of Commons over the proposed law, known as parliamentary ping-pong.

Higher Threshold

The draft legislation would give police greater clarity about dealing with demonstrators blocking roads or slow marching, a tactic that has been used by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil.

Under the proposed changes to the Public Order Bill, police would not need to wait for disruption to take place and could shut demonstrations down before they escalate. Police would not need to treat a series of protests by the same group as standalone incidents, but would be able to consider their total impact.

As well as creating new offences of locking-on and tunnelling, the bill also introduces increased stop and search powers for police and contentious protest banning orders.

But peers demanded a higher threshold before the new powers can be enforced.

'Just Stop Oil' protesters block traffic in Parliament Square in London, on Oct. 4, 2022. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Proposing the change, Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said, “I want a serious threshold.”

He added, “We are going to pass legislation here where protests, that all of us would regard as reasonable, all of us would regard as acceptable, are going to be illegal.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a Home Office minister, opposed the proposed change, saying: “The debate is not about whether these measures ban protests. Quite simply they do not. What we are trying to ascertain is the point to which protesters can disrupt the lives of the general public. And the government position is clear—we are on the side of the public. The government wants to protect the rights of the public to go about their daily lives without let or hindrance.

“We are listening to the public who are fed up with seeing day after day protesters blocking roads. They make children late for school, they make people miss hospital appointments, they make small businesses struggle. Any change in law must address this.”

Proceedings Disrupted

It followed earlier drama in the House of Lords chamber, when eco-activists disturbed proceedings to protest against the proposed bill, leading to a short adjournment.

The 12 members of Extinction Rebellion, wearing tops bearing the slogan Defend Human Rights, were swiftly escorted from the upper chamber by doorkeepers and security staff. No arrests were made.

Speaking outside the chamber, Extinction Rebellion protester Marion Malcher, 67, from Woking, said: “This draconian legislation severely infringes on our human right to peacefully protest. Never in my lifetime have I seen the government push through such oppressive laws with such a low threshold for criminality.”

A House of Lords spokesperson said: “A small group of protesters staged a demonstration in the public gallery of the House of Lords during the report stage of the Public Order Bill.

“Proceedings were suspended for a short time while the protesters were escorted from the building and the House resumed.”

Police Welcome Clarity

While the proposed measures have been criticised by campaign groups and face challenges in Parliament, they have been welcomed by senior police officers.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said after the government plan was announced: “It is clearly understood that everybody has the right to protest. Increasingly however police are getting drawn into complex legal arguments about the balance between that right to protest and the rights of others to go about their daily lives free from serious disruption. The lack of clarity in the legislation and the increasing complexity of the case law is making this more difficult and more contested.”

Rowley added: “It is for Parliament to decide the law, and, along with other police chiefs, I made the case for a clearer legal framework in relation to protest, obstruction, and public nuisance laws. We have not sought any new powers to curtail or constrain protest, but have asked for legal clarity about where the balance of rights should be struck.

“I welcome the government’s proposal to introduce a legal definition of ‘serious disruption’ and ‘reasonable excuse.’ In practical terms, Parliament providing such clarity will create a clearer line for the police to enforce when protests impact upon others who simply wish to go about their lawful business.”

PA Media contributed to this report.