Peers block law on being annoying in public

 

Peers debate the proposal: from BBC Democracy Live

Related Stories

Peers have voted against a government proposal under which courts could stop people being annoying in public.

Ministers want to replace anti-social behaviour orders in England and Wales with injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance (Ipnas).

Courts could impose these on anyone engaging - or threatening to engage - in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".

But the government was defeated by 306 to 178 votes in the Lords.

The 128-vote defeat came despite ministers offering to hold talks about how the proposed measure could be improved.

Start Quote

Our aim is to ensure that decent law-abiding people can go about their daily lives, engage in normal behaviour... without having their own freedoms constrained by anti-social individuals”

End Quote Lord Taylor of Holbeach Home Office minister

The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said many peers believed the new injunction would undermine freedom of speech and association.

Crossbench peer Lord Dear, who led opposition to the plan, said anyone over the age of 10 could be served with an Ipna, which could last for an indefinite period of time and result in a prison term if breached.

"It risks it being used for those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick-or-treaters, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters, nudists," he said.

"This is a crowded island that we live in and we must exercise a degree surely of tolerance and forbearance."

Campaigners said the laws would not deter those most intent on causing trouble and likely to be committing other offences.

"But it will give massive power to the authorities to seek court orders to silence people guilty of nothing more than breaching political correctness or social etiquette," Reform Clause 1 campaign director Simon Calvert said.

'Elastic term'

Crossbencher Lord Blair of Boughton, a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is a piece of absolutely awful legislation and we should seek to avoid it."

Former Labour Attorney General Lord Morris of Aberavon criticised the Home Office for bringing forward "ill thought out" proposals with "little regard for the consequences".

"The Home Office I fear, from time to time, does not fulfil a purpose as a guardian of our liberties and as a watchtower against infringement of those liberties," he said, arguing that the words harassment, alarm and distress had been well tested in the courts.

"Nuisance and annoyance is such an elastic term that, if applied widely, can be open-ended machinery which would catch all sorts of people who really should not be before the courts," he concluded.

The Home Office has said the new injunctions - part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill - would never be imposed in an unreasonable way.

And Home Office minister Lord Taylor of Holbeach denied that the bill would create a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"Lords have suggested, for example, that an injunction could be sought against bell ringers or street preacher or carol singers or indeed others engaging in perfectly normal everyday activities.

"That is clearly not the government's purpose. It is my belief that these concerns are misplaced. The purpose of our reforms is not to prevent people exercising their rights to protests and free speech.

"Our aim is to ensure that decent law-abiding people can go about their daily lives, engage in normal behaviour and enjoy public and private behaviour without having their own freedoms constrained by anti-social individuals."

The government could seek to reinsert the proposal in the bill later in its passage through the Lords and, if that fails, when it returns to the House of Commons.

Both Houses of Parliament must agree on the final wording of the bill before it can be sent for Royal Assent, when the Queen approves bills and they become law.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 11.

    "Abolish the House of Lords" -now who said that?

  • rate this
    +112

    Comment number 10.

    Totally agree with the Lords on this - the proposed law is far too ambiguously worded - and reassurances that it 'won't be used that way' (ie to suppress legitimate peaceful protest) are frankly laughable.
    Give the authorities a loosely worded law to use - and they'll use it to the hilt!

  • rate this
    +62

    Comment number 9.

    This is a frightening piece of legislation, so far removed from our normal way of doing things. It is totalitarian in its remit..I thought the Lib Dems always opposed things like this...oh silly me they are in the Government now arnt they

  • rate this
    +101

    Comment number 8.

    "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".

    Well that could cover anything. You only have to read some comments to see how touch some people are. Taking too long to get your ticket out at a train barrier can be very annoying, I hardly count it as a crime though. This seems like a very dangerous law.

  • rate this
    -8

    Comment number 7.

    Annoying article!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 6.

    Will this stop chatty people on the bus? If so, good.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 5.

    I find lots of OAPs very annoying in the street in the way that they durdle along, walking from side to side and generally getting under my feet when I'm out in the town, especially at lunch time and weekends (because they have all week to shop, so why can't they do it when the rest of us are at work ?)

  • rate this
    +122

    Comment number 4.

    The home office says "the laws will never be used in that way" If you believe that you will believe anything. The councils use anti terrorist laws for checking people dust bins, they were never meant to be used that way. All power to the Lords on this one.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 3.

    "A group of peers will try to block a law under which courts could stop people being annoying in public later"

    Otherwise known as prison?

  • rate this
    +78

    Comment number 2.

    Unless annoyance and nuisance are tightly defined, and fairly so, this potential legislation is stupid and dangerous.Fact is the wording is far too vague and probably cannot be defined adequately. The Government says the law would never be used unreasonably. Balderdash! Have had personal experience of the police unreasonably using existing laws to quell peaceful protest.

  • rate this
    +97

    Comment number 1.

    "The Home Office has said the new injunctions would never be imposed in an unreasonable way." - just like anti-terrorism laws were never unreasonably used eg to silence hecklers. Poorly written laws will always be abused by lawyers wishing to line their pockets by using the law to override justice and those who wish to curtail the few civil liberties we have left

 

Page 32 of 32

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.