Coroners and Justice Bill

This is on a completely separate matter. I move this amendment on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. In its report, Demonstrating Respect for Human Rights? A Human Rights Approach to Policing Protest, HL Paper 47-1, particularly at paragraphs 80 and following, the committee expressed concern about the position under the Public Order Act. A number of witnesses drew the committee’s attention to Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which criminalises threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour in certain circumstances. The report says: ""Some witnesses said that this section ‘can be used in a way which … illegitimately stifles protest’ or has a chilling effect on free speech"." Liberty provided an example of the police citing Section 5 of the Act when a young man demonstrating outside the Church of Scientology’s London headquarters was issued with a summons by the police for refusing to take down his sign, which read, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult". The police alleged that the use of the word "cult" violated Section 5, although they did not subsequently proceed with a prosecution. The Metropolitan Police gave an example of the arrest under Section 5 of a protester at a free-speech rally for wearing a picture of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed that had been published in the Danish press, explaining: ""That was during a very tense period … we chose to wait until somebody came forward to us and said ‘I fear that that will cause a breach of the peace; I am offended by that’ and then we took action against the individuals"." The Select Committee asked police witnesses whether they considered that existing police powers under Section 5 were too broad or used too often. AAC Allison disagreed, suggesting that, ""if [people] felt that we were acting inappropriately or making excessive use of our powers then they had the right to challenge us about it"." The Select Committee’s report continues: ""As with freedom of assembly, freedom of expression imposes both positive and negative obligations on the state"," and then sets out more of the evidence. In the recommendation in paragraph 86 the committee expresses the view that Section 5 confers a very wide discretion and that consideration should be given to removing the word "insulting" from the Public Order Act because it can be used inappropriately to suppress the right to free speech. It therefore suggests deleting the reference to language or behaviour that is merely insulting. The committee considers that such an amendment would provide proportionate protection to individuals’ right to free speech while continuing to protect people from threatening or abusive speech, and has suggested the amendment that I am moving. The Government’s reply to that report in May 2009 referred to paragraph 85 and said that they had been considering carefully the concerns raised by the committee with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Ministry of Justice. It said: ""While we consider that the Committee’s recommendation has merit in the context of the policing of protest, the implications of the amendment are potentially far reaching for the policing of lower level disorder on the street, and for the racially and religiously aggravated section 5 offences. We shall report back to the Committee, once we have conducted further consultation with stakeholders"." That was in May. The purpose of moving the amendment is to give the Government the opportunity now to give an update. I beg to move.