Menu
UK Parliament

Public Order Bill completes passage through Parliament

27 April 2023

Police officer at a protest

Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the bill, it received Royal Assent on 2 May. The bill is now an Act of Parliament (law).

The Public Order Bill aims to strengthen police powers to tackle certain tactics employed by protesters. 

Consideration of amendments

The bill was considered by the House of Lords between 19 October 2022 and 21 February 2023, before returning to the House of Commons. 

The bill passed between the Houses as members of the Lords considered Commons reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments, plus some alternative amendments to Lords changes.

Amendments discussed on Wednesday 26 April covered subjects relating to the powers of officers to stop and search on suspicion. Members considered:

  • the responsibility of the chief superintendent to take reasonable steps to inform the public when stop and search powers are in active use
  • requiring officers to give their name, their badge and shoulder number, and details of the stop that the officer considers relevant
  • requiring police forces to establish a charter on the use of stop and search powers, setting out how, when and why they will be used.

Catch up

Explore further information

Read background on the bill in the House of Lords Library Public Order Bill briefing.

What's happened so far? 

Consideration of amendments day two: Tuesday 28 March

Members of the Lords considered Commons reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments, plus some alternative amendments to Lords changes.

After a debate on the floor of the House, members chose to disagree with Commons changes and instead put forward an alternative.

Lords divisions

There was a division (vote) on a proposed amendment to the bill.

Stop and search powers

Members put forward an amendment which would require police officers to provide information when carrying out a stop and search, including their name and badge number. It would also require police forces to establish a charter on the use of their powers, setting out how, when and why they will be used, and to produce an annual report. 

Members voted 246 in favour and 201 against and so the change was made. 

Catch up

Consideration of amendments day one: Tuesday 14 March

Members of the Lords have now considered Commons reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments to the bill, plus some alternative amendments to Lords changes.

Lords divisions

There were two divisions (votes) on a proposed amendments to the bill.

Serious disruption

The first vote was on the definiton of serious disruption to individuals, communities and services as a result of a protest.

MPs in the House of Commons proposed that the wording of the bill use the term 'more than minor' as the benchmark for when disruption becomes an offence.

Members of the Lords considered a further change where 'more than minor' would be replaced with 'significant disruption' or 'significant delay'.

Members voted 222 in favour and 233 against and so the change was not made. The Commons wording was then agreed to.

Stop and search powers

During previous consideration of the bill, Lords members agreed to remove a clause empowering police to stop and search individuals without suspicion.

MPs in the House of Commons agreed to restore the clause on the grounds that it is appropriate for police to be given such powers in situations where a police inspector believes there will be serious public disruption or individuals will be carrying prohibited items.

Members of the Lords considered a further change to amend this clause which ensures only chief inspectors can give officers these powers, and to reduce the time period for such powers from 24 hours to 12 hours.

Members voted 242 in favour and 196 against, so the change was made and the clause was amended.

Catch up

Third reading: Tuesday 21 February

Third reading is  a chance for members to make sure the eventual law is effective, workable and without loopholes.

Some technical amendments (changes) to the bill were put forward by members at the conclusion of its Lords stages.

Catch up

Report stage day two: Tuesday 7 February

Report stage is a further opportunity to closely scrutinise elements of the bill and make changes.

Proposed changes

Members speaking on the second day of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

The amendments covered a range of subjects, including: 

  • police stop and search powers
  • protections for journalists
  • rights to protest.

Lords divisions

There were also six divisions (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

Stop and search powers

The first vote was on amendment 47, which sought to remove a clause from the bill giving police powers to stop and search without suspicion.

Members voted 285 in favour and 208 against, so the change was made and the clause was removed.

Public processions

The second vote was on amendment 48. This amendment, proposed by the government, would give police powers to restrict a protest if it may result in serious disruption to the life of a community. 

Members voted 240 in favour and 254 against, so the change was not made.

Obstruction of highways

The third vote was on amendment 50, also proposed by the government, which sought to remove protesting an issue of current debate as a lawful excuse for blocking a road. 

Members voted 239 in favour and 248 against, so the change was not made.

As the government amendments were introduced for the first time in the House of Lords, they cannot be added again when the bill returns to the House of Commons for their consideration.

Protection of observers

The fourth vote was on amendment 54, which sought to protect journalists, legal observers, academics, and bystanders who observe protests and/or the actions of the police to control protests.

Members voted 283 in favour and 192 against, so the change was made.

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders

The fifth vote was on amendment 56, which sought to limit the trigger events for the issue of a Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPO) to specific protest-related offences.

Members voted 259 in favour and 200 against, so the change was made.

SDPO without conviction

The sixth vote was on amendment 63, which looked to remove a clause from the bill that allows for the issuing of an SDPO without a conviction being made.

Members voted 247 in favour and 192 against, so the change was made and the clause was removed.

Catch up

Report stage day one: Monday 30 January

Proposed changes

Members speaking on day one of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

The amendments covered a range of subjects, including: 

  • penalties for obstructing highways
  • reasonable excuse defences for acts carried out as part of trade disputes
  • protecting rights to privacy and private property.

Lords divisions

There were two divisions (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

Serious disruption definition

The first vote was on amendment 1, which sought to clarify the definition of 'serious disruption' and therefore establish the threshold of disruption that would trigger the powers detailed in the new law.

Members voted 243 in favour and 221 against, so the change was made.

Reasonable excuse defence

The second vote was on amendment 8, which sought to limit the scope of the 'reasonable excuse' defence for locking on offences. 

Members voted 221 in favour and 224 against, so the change was not made.

Further changes

Members also agreed to changes put forward by the government as well as amendment 45, regarding interference with access to or provision of abortion services, without a vote.

Catch up

What's happened so far?

Committee stage day three: Thursday 13 December

Committee stage is the first chance for line by line examination of the bill. 

Proposed changes

Members speaking on the final day of committee stage put forward amendments (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

The amendments covered a range of subjects, including: 

  • protection for journalists reporting on protests
  • noise trigger powers
  • public order policing guidance and minimum training standards.

Catch up

Committee stage day two: Tuesday 22 November

Proposed changes

Members speaking on day one of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed. 

These amendments covered a range of subjects, including: 

  • 'safe access' zones, protecting access to clinics for women who have made the decision to have an abortion
  • new police powers of stop and search in relation to protest, particularly in relation to women
  • harmonising the position between the territorial police forces—those covering a geographical force area—and the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police. 

Catch up

Committee stage day one: Wednesday 16 November

Proposed changes

Members speaking on day one of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed. 

These amendments covered a range of subjects, including: 

  • burden of proof on new offences
  • possible defences for new offences
  • reducing the proposed maximum sentence for 'locking on'
  • creating a legal definition of 'serious disruption'
  • whether the first clause of the bill, creating a new offence of 'locking on' should be removed from the draft law.

Catch up

Second reading: Tuesday 1 November

Members discussed the main issues in the bill and drew attention to specific areas where they thought amendments (changes) were needed during second reading. Topics covered during the debate included: 

  • stop and search powers, including suspicionless stop and search and safeguards
  • Serious Disruption Prevention Orders and creating a legal definition of serious disruption
  • buffer zones around abortion clinics
  • the right to protest.

Members speaking

Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative), Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, opened the debate and responded on behalf of the government.

Members speaking in the debate included lawyers, senior judges and former senior police officers, including:

  • Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour), Council Member, JUSTICE
  • Viscount Hailsham (Conservative), barrister
  • Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench), former Metropolitan Police Commissioner
  • Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrats), Liberal Democrat spokesperson for home affairs and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service.

Catch up

Find out more about the issues discussed: catch up on Parliament TV or read a transcript in Lords Hansard.

Image: Adobe Stock

Related news

Further Information

Find out more about the House of Lords, and follow us on social media

Further Information