Government Preparing to Quietly Amend the Definition of Disruptive Protest in ‘Chilling’ Change

‘Sneaky, cheating bastards’ – Josiah Mortimer reports on a peer leading the charge against the Government’s fresh protest clampdown

New Government plans to restrict protest – snuck out in defiance of Parliament – could have a chilling effect on free speech in England and Wales, a Green Party peer has warned. 

The revelation that the Government is set to redefine what constitutes “serious disruption” from protests was highlighted in a House of Lords scrutiny committee report on 11 May. 

It points to new regulations from ministers that would permit police to impose restrictions on demonstrations causing “more than minor” disruption to daily activities, including “going to and fro on the highway”. 

The new regulations – which cannot be amended by MPs or peers as they are brought in by ‘Henry VIII powers’ – would also allow the police to consider the cumulative effect of repeated protests when shutting down demonstrations. They could cover any disruption by two or more people.

The changes come after similar amendments were proposed by the Government in January as part of the Public Order Act – and were rejected by the House of Lords, leading to their removal. 

The Government’s controversial approach to these draft rules, which were laid before the Public Order Bill had even completed its parliamentary stages, is now drawing sharp criticism.

Legal experts Tom Hickman KC and Gabriel Tan characterised the Government’s manoeuvring as an irresponsible and anti-democratic act of “constitutional chutzpah”. 

The move also risks triggering a battle with the House of Lords. Among the most vocal critics is the Green Party.

Speaking to Byline Times, Green peer Baroness Jenny Jones said: “They are just sneaky, cheating bastards. That’s my quote.”

The implication of this shift in definition of “serious disruption” is potentially vast, as virtually any action, based on the judgement of individual police officers, could be deemed a violation, thereby having a stifling effect on protests, Baroness Jones says. 

She warned the police could halt “literally anything”. “It could be holding a placard, it could be holding a piece of paper. We’ve already seen these sorts of arrests, but it brings us into line with some very repressive regimes.”

And Baroness Jones slammed the Government’s use of a statutory instrument to push the proposed changes through, bypassing typical parliamentary procedure. 

She also lambasted Labour for its lack of opposition to the changes. Labour will be launching a ‘motion of regret’ to the amendment, which has no formal power to stop the move, unlike a ‘fatal motion’ planned by Baroness Jones. It will be voted for or against on 13 June.

“I simply don’t understand how they can let some of this stuff go through and still maintain they have any principles,” she said, questioning Labour’s commitment to democracy.

Baroness Jones also argued that the Government was essentially ‘hiding’ behind the police, in her eyes falsely claiming that the police were asking for these new powers when in reality “they have not”.

“The Government is kind of using them as a bit of a cover,” she added.